Modes of Harmonic Minor

[aiwass]

What are the modes of Harmonic minor called? I know the fifth mode is Phrygian Dominant, but other than that, I have no clue...

[Zeppelin]

Originally posted by aiwass
What are the modes of Harmonic minor called? I know the fifth mode is Phrygian Dominant, but other than that, I have no clue...

hmm yeah i asked that like a year ago
and nobody knew
hmm
ive been around for too long ;)

[griphon2]

Harmonic Minor
Harmonic minor (maj 7)
Locrian (natural 6 or 13)
Ionian Augmented (#5)
Dorian (#11)
Phrygian Dominant (b9b13)
Lydian (#9)
Diminished altered or locrian (b4bb7)

Melodic Minor
Melodic minor (maj 7)
Dorian (b9)
Lydian Augmented (#5 #11)
Lydian (b7)
Mixolydian (b13)
Locrian (natural 9)
Altered

[Zeppelin]

why do you write #11
and not #4?
does it make any difference?

[griphon2]

Yes and no. The naming depends purely on orchestration of the change and/or voicing. In classical terms, these changes are called suspensions. The 4th most always resolves downward to the third. It's truly an ambiguous change. (really and mostly used as a dominant) Orchestrally written as an 11th. It's written far enough away from the 3rd to be heard.

[griphon2]

I must amend. The writing of changes may never get standarized. #4 is internal #11 is external. Primarily,
these extensions or tensions resolve downward.

[Azrael]

Aaah.. glad to see another classical influenced guitarist here! :) I like peeps with taste ;)

[Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Azrael
Aaah.. glad to see another classical influenced guitarist here! :) I like peeps with taste ;)

Yeah, this guy knows how to party or what?! :D

[aiwass]

Oh ok. I was just wondering if they all had more interesting names. Oh well, you can't have it all...:)

[griphon2]

Is that with white wine AND an appertife?

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Ah yes the Harmonic minor. one of my favorites, but I have to admit that I like to alter it slightly to where it becomes "The Gypsy scale", or the so called "Hungarian minor". The Harmonic minor is completely semetrical from a dim7 standpoint, which is great for classical music. I don't use the Melodic minor very much. I don't recomend it for guitar, since that scale was conceived with only vocals in mind. You see the step and a half between the leading tone(maj7), and the min6th was to abrubt, and awkward for singing "gracefully"(as they would say). So they moved the min6th to a maj6th instead. thus we have the Melodic minor now. I have heard some very good jazz stuff in Melodic minor, not to mention classical, so suit yourself
JJJ

[Edited by JOHN JAUNESE on 01-14-2003 at 06:00 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

Yeah, I'm also a fan on the hungarian minor scale. I'm kinda confused on what you said though, John. I thought the gypsy scale and the hungarian minor scale were too different scales. The gypsy scale, also called the spanish phrygian, is closer to the melodic minor (rather than harmonic minor)except it has a flattened 2nd where the melodic minor has a flattened 3rd. The hungarian I believe is the same as the Harmonic minor but has a raised 4th. Check it out, or am I misreading you?

I also don't agree with the use of the melodic minor as a source for writting tunes. My reason is the same as John's, the raised 6th is very hard to work with when writting guitar chord arrangements. Doesn't sound pleasant to me. On the other hand as a harmonizing source, for putting a melody on top of a chord. It works well for the m(maj7) chords. Sometimes m6, but the dorian I think is better.

Nice to have you hear John, DLR kicks arse! I wish I could party with him. :)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-14-2003 at 06:24 PM]

[JOHN JAUNESE]

The Spanish Gypsy scale is not a scale unto itself. It is one of the modes on the Harmonic minor scale. The "Gypsy" scale is "the Hungarian minor" scale. A scale resembling the harmonic minor scale, but with an augmented fourth (c, d, e-flat, f-sharp, g, a-flat, b, c'). It is called the Gypsy scale because of its exotic sound, and its use in Hungarian music. So I think you have modes confused with scales, maybe.
JJJ
OH -one more thing. I got my information from old crusty books. I went on the internet to see what you might be looking at. There is alot of misinformation out there. one website actually said the gypsy scale was the harmonic minor! Go to a big fat music dictionary, or here's a website I found that was accurate. http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/textg/Gypsyscale.html

[noticingthemistake]

Kool. I got my info on the Gypsy scale from 3 different sources but I trust your judgement. :) I don't have any old crustly books on guitar, just one old pamplet which I got from my great grandfather. Although it doesn't go into gypsy scales. Got stuff on Hungarian scales though, just no meantion of it being a gypsy scale also. Believe me I don't trust the internet either, there is alot of misinformation. I dont have my scales and modes mixed up, although I do accidently mix them up when I write them. :D Now, what mode in the harmonic minor is the hungarian minor???

Here's how I got it:

Harmonic minor : 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, 7

The modes.

II: A dorian mode but the 6th is raised. 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, #6, b7

III: A major scale with the 5th raised. 1, 2, 3, 4, #5, 6, 7

IV: The dorian again but the 4th is raised. 1, 2, b3, #4, 5, 6, b7 <~~ Close. Switch the b7 with the 6th.

V: Phrygian Major 1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, b7

VI: A lydian mode with the 2nd raised. 1, #2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7

VII: Altered scale but the 7th is double flattened. 1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, bb7

Hungarian Minor: 1, 2, b3, #4, 5, b6, 7

What am I missing?? I know you can alter the harmonic minor slightly to get the hungarian minor. The raised 4th in the hungarian almost makes you think it would fit in the harmonic minor with the lowered 6th. If this is what your thinking, the b2 messes that up really quick. The only thing close that I can come up with is the 5th mode in the hungarian minor, which is the Double Harmonic scale. Far from being similar to the Harmonic minor.

The Hungarian Minor is actually a scale by itself (I don't mean Diatonic scales). It may fit somewhere in a mode of some scale, but it is a scale like Major and Minor. Simply because Mozart, Beethoven, and many others have written hungarian compositions. Thus it was given this name, sorta like when you become famous and your home town names a street after you. There is a longer explanation, by there is no need to write it. In short, they gave it a major and minor diatonic, which other cultural scales do not have.

Anyways, thanx for the help man. I hope I helped you too, I think you've been altering too many scales. ;)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-14-2003 at 10:04 PM]

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Think of the Hungarian minor (Gypsy scale) as just another diatonic scale like the natural minor. The Gypsy scale has its own set of seven modes just like any other diatonic scale. The Hungarian minor, or the Gypsy scale are not modes. The "Spanish" mode you mentioned from the Harmonic minor scale is not the "Gypsy scale".
JJJ

[chris mood]

Gypsy Scale - pretty cool. I always tought of it as playing in Harmonic Minor and borrowing notes from corresponding Blues scale. The b7 and natural 4th tones sound cool when mixed in and create some interesting chromatic lines.
Melodic Minor - does not sound good when used as a Minor scale (it always sounds like someone played a major scale but made a mistake on the 3rd)but contains some cool altered dominant scales within its modes. Its worth checking into, jazz players always utulize them, and some hip blues players like Robben Ford.

[chris mood]

BTW - What was the double harmonic scale again, I remember coming across this one in the Tricks section and it was pretty cool.

[noticingthemistake]

John-

Yes. I believe you man. Here's my chance to point out something that may have misguided you, since in your original post you said the "hungarian minor" is a mode of the harmonic minor. I've seen this written before in countless theoritical books. Here's probably what it said, "There are four diatonic scales, Major, Natural Minor, Harmonic Minor, and Melodic minor. All other scales are either modes or inversions of these four scales." This is not completely incorrect, but is most commonly misinterpeted. This is a biproduct of theorist reading too much into what is said, and reader automatically applies that all scales are related. Like you may have seen the hungarian minor is related (modal) to the harmonic minor. This is not true. All scales contain modes as everyone understands. The part that is misunderstood is the inversion part of it, which I think should be written as 'altered' for comtemporary understanding. This is where they may have meant hungarian minor is related to harmonic minor. Just misunderstood.

Here's what they do.

Take the second mode of the harmonic minor scale. The dorian mode with the raised 6th. 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, #6, b7. Now translate the formula but starting with a different degree. Start with the 2 and keep the formula the same and you'll have this.

1, b2, 3, 4, #5, b6, 7. Now you have a new scale, I'm not sure which one it is. But you get the idea. Yes the #5 and the b6 are the same, you can choose which one to use.

The result although fairly similar is completely different. The intervals (which scales are build on) are completely different.

They will also alter these scales by messing with the chord structures within them. Simply by taking what would be a minor chord in the scale and making it Major. Usually the Fifth. The harmonic minor comes from this. I'll explain if anyone needs. Now you can even take a scale and write it backwards like this.

The sixth of the harmonic minor, but run the formula backwards. 1, #2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7 turns into...

1, 2, 3, #4, 5, #6, 7. Which would be another scale. I like this scale alot. :D


Again this is a biproduct of a theorists over-analyzing, but also creating new ideas. I use this alot, I always alter scales in such, you tend to come up with some unique things. Some good, some bad. The example I gave are more exotic scales; more common scales come from altering the major and natural minor scales.

Contemporary ideas are based on alot of the same principle. All classical ideas are pretty much manipulated, altered, or combined with other ideas to form new ideas. You probably do the same, like you said you like the harmonic minor but you also alter it to fit the sound you want.

In the end, some times when classical theory is translated to contemporary theory alot of confusion accures. Alot of books don't lay down this explanation, so an understanding is crude. Classical theory lays a nice foundation to build on Contemporary theory, but contemporary ideas can not be answered by classical theory.

Chris-

I believe the double harmonic scale is the following formula:

1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, 7.

I've seen it also called the Byzantine Scale, but I am unsure if that is a correct name.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-16-2003 at 01:54 PM]

[chris mood]

1 b2 3 4 5 b6 7
Hmm, somethings wrong with your analysis, if you are relating these scale degree alterations to the major scale
you left in a major 3rd.
If you are relating these scale degree alterations to the harmonic minor scale the b6 would be the same as your 5th.

[noticingthemistake]

Ahh.. I thought that also, but look at the name of the scale again. "Double Harmonic" not "Double Harmonic minor". The double harmonic has nothing to do with being a minor scale, it is actually a major scale. Doesn't make much sense, I know but watch. The harmonic minor main use is in Perfect Cadences. Chords iv and v, and a cadence is going from either of those back to the root i. The harmonic minor turns the v chord into a major V chord in the minor key. So the result of a cadence would be the following chord progression. V to i, the scale is meant to make this chord progression more powerful. A major to minor chord is more harmonious sounding than a minor to minor.

Same with the Double Harmonic, but this one turns the IV into a minor chord. So it's cadence would be iv to I, and the V becomes a diminished chord. The other would be vdim to I. The double harmonic comes from this, it changes both perfect intervals. I hope this explains why. Need more info let me know.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-15-2003 at 02:53 PM]

[JOHN JAUNESE]

When you combine all the altered notes from all the vaiations of the minor scale family it makes a great excuse to sound chromatic any time you want. I think Chris pointed that out as well.
JJJ

[noticingthemistake]

Yeah, Ultimately you goes by what you wanna hear. Starting with scales in a good first step for a beginning guitarist, but as you mature (your ear mainly) these altered scales and added extension add sort of a flavor to the music. It's nice once you gain that imdependance and knowledge. I think music is meant to be experimented with, otherwise there's no real fun in it. :D

[griphon2]

Any scale will work, if you know how to end. Even this is moot.

[chris mood]

O.k., 1st of all, on your reply post on page 3 above your interval analysis you reffer to the scale as double harmonic minor? Now your saying the scale is not a minor scale?
2nd, acordding to your analysis the 5 chord would not be diminished, but instead a Dominant7b5 (b9).

[griphon2]

I find this interesting. Any diminshed chord is really and functionally a Dominant. Regardless how you spell it, it's a dominant b9. So what? You can resolve to anything you want. Hopefully, it's the tune you're playing.

[griphon2]

This dishonesty is unreal. What the hell is a double minor whatever. This is by far the newest con, or a pile of crap,
or even the latest hustle, I've heard yet. Why as humans we insist to be dishonest? Please stop the con, there are only 7 notes. We are not all stupid!

[chris mood]

O.K., 1st of all there's 12 notes in western music
2nd, a diminished chord exists inside of a dominant chord but its root is a half step above that of the dominant. So G#dim7 would be the same as G7b9 minus the root (G).
G7 and Gdim7 are entirely 2 different chords and resolve differently. A dim7 chord resolves by half step above anyone of its chord tones. Therefore Gdim7 would resolve to chords with the root of G#, B, D, & F. While G7 would resolve to C or Aminor.

[chris mood]

found it
http://www.guitartricks.com/2000/trick.php?trick_id=5346
It's quite interesting, the scale is comprised of 2 maj 7th chords a half step apart. So if you were in the key of G you would have Gmaj7 (G B D F#) & Abmaj7 (Ab C Eb G).
Scale; G Ab B C D Eb Gb/F# G
The scale could be used to solo over the progression Gmaj7 to Abmaj7 (given the chords were played 2 beats per measure or a up tempo one chord per measure)or as an altered scale to solo over the 2nd of the 2 chords (Abmaj7). The notes of the Gmaj7 chord would act as half step approach tones to the Abmaj7 chord. Pretty cool stuff.

[noticingthemistake]

Chris- Read that again.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
~~>"Double Harmonic" not "Double Harmonic minor"<~~. The double harmonic has nothing to do with being a minor scale, it is actually a major scale.

So why did you write this?

Originally posted by chris mood

O.k., 1st of all, on your reply post on page 3 above your interval analysis you reffer to the scale as double harmonic minor? Now your saying the scale is not a minor scale?

It is not a minor scale, because the tonic is not a minor chord. It's a major, that's why I wrote that. When compared to Major and minor scale, it is actually neither. The reason for it being named a major scale is because of its resolution to a MAJOR chord.

About the diminished, sorry I made a mistake on naming that chord. :eek: I didn't go back and actually check it to make sure I was 100% percent. OMG! I made a mistake. LOL. I apologize but the idea still stands. Here's where I clearly explain why it called a double harmonic.

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
The double harmonic comes from this, it changes both perfect intervals.

The reason is that the harmonic minor and harmonic major only change one interval. The harmonic minor changes the v to an V (V-i). The harmonic major changes the IV to an iv (iv-I). Put them together makes the Double Harmonic. Double means 2. There is a more detailed explanation to it. But again, it's a long and more confusing matter. Just trust me.

Griphon- I really don't care if you believe me. The double harmonic scale is not exactly a widely used scale. The idea is to make the IV-I progression change to iv-I, and have the V-I progression change to V7b5-I, which is extremely uncommon. Thats why you have probably never heard of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by griphon2
Please stop the con, there are only 7 notes. We are not all stupid!

The double harmonic scale has 7 notes in it. So what are you saying????

Here's the scale in A.

E:---------------------
B:---------------------
G:---------------------
D:--------------6-7----
A:--------5-7-8--------
E:--5-6-9--------------

chords. I II iii iv V7b5 VIaug viidim(bb3)

Chords are based on triads. I included the V7b5 since you understood that. All chords of the fifth degree of a major/minor scale are meant to be dominant. That is there scale degree name. Dominant, just like the iv is Subdominant. The last chord, can't be written as a triad number because the 3rd is double fattened. But the second inversion of it, would make it a G#7(second inversion).

Again this scale is meant to make the iv to I and V7b5 to I progression. And harmonize thoses progessions. It's is not meant for composition, and I don't recomend it. I have seen the V7b5 to I before, but there are other scales to harmonize it. The iv to I is another matter, it is hardly ever used. I only explained it because chris asked. I'm sorry I caused confusion, and if you don't understand. Don't use it, it's not a major part in music. I also think it causes problems in some cases.

P.S. Thats also right chris, just didn't want to get into that. :)

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-16-2003 at 11:28 AM]

[chris mood]

sorry about the slam, it was late at night when I wrote that. But if you look at your response on p3, about 3/4 the way down you wrote "the formula for the double harmonic minor is 1 b2 3 etc..."
Guess I was just Noticing The Mistake....LoL

[noticingthemistake]

LOL...It's kool man. WOW I didn't notice that when I went back, I thought you were talking about the post after it. I guess I did write it as Double Harmonic minor. :ekk: It was just a typo though, I was trying to finish the message up quickly, and just goofed. :)

[aiwass]

Sure... :D

[noticingthemistake]

Oh man! I feel this one is going to be hard to let down! :D I guess I'm going to have to practice more on noticing my own mistakes. Now all you guys are there to make sure I make good with my name. :)

'noticingthemistake' is actually the band I was in when I became a member.

[griphon2]

I don't look at diminished chords as diminished. If I want a specific diminished sound, I use the "specific" symmetry of a diminished chord. dim7 have 4 names. The same 4 names as Dominant b9s. Most of the time, I use the dims as a function of a V7. Simple V7 move exactly the same way as dims as well as 4ths and 5ths.
viidim(bb3) is really an extended V7 with several extensions. A bb3 is really a #9. Became real famous by Jimi Hendrix. Foxey Lady. Both tensions of M3 and m3 exists in the change. (Ib7#9 IIIb7 IVb7) Purple Haze is a variation of the above progression. A diminished idea being used as a function of harmony. Fused maj and minor pentatonic work great over the change and progression.

[chris mood]

Hmmm, not really clear on your use of diminished chords, they do exist inside of altered Dominants but theoretically function a little differently when played by themselves.

You could approach an altered dominant as a diminished chord when improvising over it, you would be outlining the diminished sound of the chord, which is what a lot of jazz and fusion players do. Most rock/blues players will outline the minor sound of the chord preferring instead to use pentatonics, this is what Hendrix did in the above forementioned tunes.

Dominants can resolve by half step, but this resolution is ussually only commonplace when a dominant is used as a Tri-tone substitution. The tri tone sub for G7 would be Db7 which would then resolve downward a half step to the C maj.

[griphon2]

I need to qualify the difference between American music and Western European music. (the theoretical system we use) The system of W. European music and American music are two different animals. American music evolved “into” the European system. There was a need to explain what the Americans were doing. It roughly took about 30-40 years.
Through mainly Bach and his Well-Tempered Clavier, the system we understand today evolved. (actually was to prove that a tempered system was better than others that existed during the time) Western European music is I based. American music is V7 based. (blues) It is very unfortunate that this distinction is not readily made. American music is so unique because of the V7 idea. I manipulate the European system to express this one idea. For example, I IV V or V7 is traditional or classical European. The American version is still I IV V with this one twist. All the chords are dominant. The progression does not have a true end, technically or theoretically. The bass line is what makes it work traditionally. Either American or European. American I IV V can be played in any chord type variation possible. An unheard of and not so well liked idea amongst die hard Classical folks. Bach type analyzation does not apply. (It can be forced to apply) American music IS different. This is one reason why pentatonic work so readily in American music, whether it be personally, blues or country. Using Classical theory (Western European system) to understand American music can create mass confusion and dogma. American music is in general, emphasize in gerneral, cycle based. All chords of a major scale are dominant, and the chords in between. Which really opens a new can of worms. This is the reason why blues, pop, rock, country, etc., permeates nearly all societies of the world.

[griphon2]

For Chris,
Exactly,... a function of harmony. Most American music is based on the cycle of 5ths. Or what sounds right. If you take all of Bach's well-tempered clavier and altered appropriately to b7, you'd have American music logic in a nutshell. It would always resolve to I, somewhere, regardless of quality. In traditional analysis, it's notated as V7/of something. The European system had to accomodate this new sound. To make this logic work within the system, the quality of the change had to be I, i, or dominant. Whether you want a specific modal sound, classical, rock, pop, country or blues, one or you are always controlled upon how you end. Tri-tones (b5) are a fifth cycle substitution. The resolution is predominately to I or i. You could take Db7 to an Gbsomething, depending on where you want to go or in the bass.
A diminished is in itself a specific sound.
Augmented, too. They are symmetrical chords and scales. If you want "that" specific sound you would play that. If not, the resolution will again be V7 to I, i. A function of harmony.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-17-2003 at 06:48 PM]

[griphon2]

Sorry I missed a post. It's G7altered with Abmaj7. It's a legit locrian. You can alter Abmaj scale with a #5 or an Abmaj scale with a b3 and other variations of the same. G7 dominant is the key to this logic. Dominant is everything in American music. A half step above the chord you are playing is locrian. You can alter at will, it's still locrian, or what you wish to emphasize. These actual scales may be major, minor, harmonic minor or melodic minor, the same results will come to pass or past. Resolution is paramount, or another way, pentultimate.

[noticingthemistake]

Griphon, I agree the Dominant in everything in American but also in all music. The dominant is just what it means, dominant. It is the strongest chord of any key, and that's the effect it will produce harmonically. Without it music would be rather weak. Now a diminished may work within a dominant chord, but their effect on the music is completely different like chris said. The diminished chord is a rather weak sound, or unfulfilled (b5) as I would say. That theory is open-minded, but maybe a little too open-minded cause your saying all chords are the same symetrically. This is true, but the effect may be more hindering cause your putting everything back to where chordal theory doesn't exist. By forming a center point between two chords, like the diminished and dominant b9, you will have no clear understanding of either one. It is nice, and a benefit, to know how they all consist together, but this is not something I would support in understanding chords. The benefit of understanding chordal structure is knowing how each one works serperately, not how one is related with another.

[griphon2]

I just disagree. Or just don't get it. Each sentence or idea you write contradicts the next. I did not say all chords are symmetrical, just dims and augs. One note or one chord always relates to one another, regardless of key or no key. All diminished can appropriately be re-written to a V7b9. That's all I am saying. It will just give a diminished a different context. If you want dims to be a leading tone, so be it. It doesn't have to be. The same with Augmented. They don't have to sound weak, because they are not. This logic is not open-minded nor open-ended. There is major control. Your view is strict traditional, mine is not.
Blues and jazz or American music in general, does not follow traditional Classical rules. I've mentioned before
of The Lydian Chromatic Concept by George Russell. This concept was constructed, in essence, and the first, to explain the problems in explaining American music or jazz in terms of traditional Classical theory or rules with new ones. If you have done any type of orchestrating American music in terms of Classical rules, whether duo, small ensemble, big band or orchestra, severe problems arise. Traditional rules, simply don't work. There are quite a few reasons for this problem. This is not the forum. Most good schools, nowadays, approach this problem separately. Traditional studies and jazz studies (American music). Two diversely different puppies.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-19-2003 at 11:23 AM]

[noticingthemistake]

With all due respect, I feel the same way with your ideas, griphon. They have no end; every post you write seems like a new theory you've made to explain your logic. Which also doesn't have a 'solid ground' to stand on once you've finished. What I think is, your taking a very simply understanding, reading too much into it, and making a thousand different ways for it to fit. Then explain how it's the absolutely correct way, and in this sense I think you've forgotten what music theory is. Your ideas and everyone else's is just a theory. Unlike other sciences, studying music theory is studying theory not fact. Although your idea may help some, I still find the rather difficult. You don't need to know 5 different chords to know how to play a simple scale. Just that idea paints a picture in mind of you reading too much into something simple. Like a V7b9 is also a diminished chord. No it isn't. It doesn't matter if they have similarities or if the culture ideas are different, the simple science of music is universal. Everything else is just theory. A diminished chord is only a diminished chord no matter how hard you look into it. Music science is not intellectual; it's simple and those who think different fail cause they're always looking for fact.

Now about me contradicting myself with every sentence, I don't see where you’re getting that. I've always tried to keep one direct point of view, but sometimes there is a problem where I need to explain something differently. I know how to work within those theories because I clearly understand how they work. Some circumstance with call for different (sometimes-contradicting) explanations, but remember it is still theory. I come from a family with 5 generations in music, plus I have read countless books so I got a nice grasp on a lot of different ideas. So I can approach music in a diverse way.

Originally posted by Griphon2
viidim(bb3) is really an extended V7 with several extensions. A bb3 is really a #9.

I'm guessing you talking about when I wrote the chords of the Double Harmonic Scale. Sorry dewd but you’re wrong, I failed to mention this before. A bb3 is not a #9, they are the same notes (enharmonic) but the formula is different. The 9th interval is not the same as the 3rd interval of a chord. You’re reading too much into it.

This logic is as simple as counting, so you take the root of a chord and as you counted up. Each note has a different formula number. Let's take the G#, as I wrote.

G# would be 1, A would be 2, and Bbb would be 3.

There is no A# (#9) in that scale, so it can not be a V7(#9) chord. The 9th interval in a chord is the same pitch note as the 2nd. You should see this. I hope this explains why two different chords can not be same, like a diminished and a dominant chord. The notes may end up being the same, but the formula will make it untrue. Everything else will crash in on itself too.

Your probably saying well that's a structure based on fact not theory. And well I thought you said it was all theory. NO this is a structure that was formed to give chords a name. The formula 1, b3, b5 will always be called a diminished chord. This is like Chemistry, 2 atoms of hydrogen plus one oxygen makes water. You can't interchange them and expect to get water. That formula will always be water. I hope you get it now, and it's not a matter of classical or contemporary theoretic ideals.

[noticingthemistake]

What I am saying is that a diminished can not be re-written as a V7b9 chord. A simple diminished chord only has 3 intervals consisting in it, how ever the 7b9 chord has 5 intervals consisting within. How can you rewritte either and make them fit. You would have to alter it in some way, and by the term "alter" you have changed it. You can look at this from any point of view and see that 3 notes and 5 notes can not coexist. But you insist on calling them the same.

And an augmented chord is not anywhere near the sound of a diminished. A augmented chord is based on a major sound, when the diminished is based on a minor sound. Here's each formula.

Augmented: 1, 3, #5
Diminished: 1, b3, b5

These chords are no where near close, nor with any other chords. If you want a different context, use inversions. But this will not change one chords spelling to another. Neither Classical or Contemporary theory will support this.







[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-19-2003 at 07:59 PM]

[chris mood]

I think what he's trying to state is that the diminished 7th chord exists inside the Dom.7b9 (take away the root of the Dom. your left w/a dim7). I grasp what Griphon is saying, it's just that the way he states things can be confusing. Sorry griph, but sometimes I have to read your posts several times to get the jist.

[noticingthemistake]

Yeah, I understand what he means by that being possible. And it has some truth to it, but that method seems to turn the entire chord structure upside down. To me, it seems like this would be ok to use within music which I'd have to disagree. The idea of this method is nice to understand, but the use of it is major confusing for anyone. With the idea of you can rewrite one chord to another.

A chord can not exist without it's root, so a dominant chord can not be a diminished chord. Whether or not the bass plays it or not, and for a bass player to understand it is almost impossible. I myself am a bass player and when I see a guitar playing a diminished chord, I play something relating to a diminished chord. I am not thinking of a dominant chord, and how would I know to play one. I can put a random number of notes to it, and change it in many ways. To go on to conceive this would make everything 30 times harder. Chords exist within chords, but what makes a chord what it is is the group of intervals it contains. You alter it in any way and it's no longer that chord. I could take a chord like m7b5, and say well if you take out the root you're left with just a minor chord. Or if I take out the 7th you're left with just a diminished chord. I idea suggests there is no need for this structure. So I find it hard to see what purpose it will serve in the end.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-20-2003 at 09:05 AM]

[chris mood]

It's jazz theory, known as chord substitution. In jazz the bass player would outline the basic chord progression while the guitar and or piano would play something related to the primary chord but not necessarily the primary chord. In jazz it would not be uncommon to play D-7 instead of B-7b5, even though the bass player is outlining the B, stack it all together and you get a B-7b5b9, ohh I can hear the dissonance in that one.

[Niklasl]

Does anyone knows any good book or site that explains all this very good. Cuz Im a beginner on this stuff... I mean I don't know anything much about scales and modes but I would love to learn. Right now Im totally lost.
I would be very glad if someone could help me in this matter.
(Sorry about the launguage, Im from sweden)

[aiwass]

Fan vad många svenskjævlar...

:D

[Niklasl]

Hehe... Visst

[Niklasl]

Din Norsk ! :-)

[aiwass]

Jag företrekker "Norrbagge".

[griphon2]

More or less, you are correct about some things. Yes, I am turning chords, harmony, scales upside down and inside out.
This idea works as a soloist or a soloist with a bass. This method added with some others gives me infinite freedom. I ain't gonna' live forever. The entire idea is indirectly laid out in the Berklee Series. It used to be just three books. I believe it's 4 or 5 books by now at $23 a shot. You may still have to read standard notation. I haven't seen them in many years. Berklee.com offers online courses. I believe GIT teaches the same ideas.
I had several of my students enter these schools with my method. More to come, to make these posts shorter.

[griphon2]

Books: Mickey Baker, my first so long ago. I believe it's still in 2 volumes.
Ted Greene, the entire series. Chord Chemistry and Soloing Scales in two parts.
George Van Eps, the entire series or what you can afford. Vol I will take years. This is the triad method I use and used to teach. A great and lively book. Take an idea, and try it on a gig.
Mauro Giuliani Studies. Great studies for rockers that want tons of speed with intervals. Classical technique, flat pick, flat pick with fingers or thumb pick with fingers.

I belive my favorites, idols or mentors, have books out, also.
Chuck Wayne-astounding guitarist, could improvise 3 voiced fuges off the top of his head. Seeing is believing.
Jim Hall-the best inside outside player I've ever heard, seen or met.
Chet Baker-neat horn or trumpet ideas.
Tal Farlow-just neat insanity.

There's an excellent player in Sweden, that does Brent Mason
style. Brent Mason has a video. Martin Tallstrom is the Swedish guy.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-20-2003 at 12:27 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

Yes. Chord Substitution does make that idea work, but in Jazz it's rarely B7b5b9. The chord progession isn't a D7 either, it would be in Bm7b9. Since the bass is the movement in Jazz, it sort of dictates the chord progession like you said. And in Jazz the chords are mostly minor, right? Take the bass note B and make it a Bm7 (very common chord in jazz). The chords of the Bm7 are B, D, F#, A. Now as you said the piano or guitar could play a D7 of that, of course look at the notes consisting inside that chord. D, F#, A, and C. You can say it's playing the second inversion of a Bm7b9 chord which the B is played in the bass. Sometimes when just looking at the guitar writting music, it's easier for the guitarist to understand D7 rather Bm7b9, second inversion. Inversions as you probably know play a huge part in Jazz music, especially for the bass player. Although in this case, it's for the guitarist. The only dissonance that actually occurs is the B and C, but that is a common alteration cause it adds color to the mix. Plus the bass will probably walk from B, to C, to D, or whatever. In the end the chord will be written with a slight alteration as Bm7b9. A B major for a jazz movement is quite rare. With the movement you said, it would be very dissonant. The problem with classical views on this subject is there views insist on outlining the Root note twice in the chord. As you can see it doesn't, just all the other notes. Contemporary ideas does not insist on this, along with other laws in Classical theory.

Also, thanx chris for the direction. I see what griphon was saying.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-20-2003 at 01:05 PM]

[griphon2]

Just plug the names in your favorite (google)search engine,
and something interesting will turn up.

[noticingthemistake]

I think I've heard of Chuck Wayne before, but the rest of the guys I'm not sure. I know Berklee, next to GIT, is a guitarists haven for learning music. I would love to go out there myself. Lessons would be kool, but I'm guessing they want a fat load of cash for them. Anyways, the idea on this matter is good to have for a guitarist. As my last post shows where I see how it is useful, and also shows where confusion may occur. There is a strictness in my views, but it's not a strictness that says your can't be open-minded and use the freedom you have. It's just saying if you choose this way, this is what is universally understood and causes less problems. And that problem would be "re-writting chords" as you said. I clearly explained why before, but the rest is kool. How they work inside each other helps, but it must be clearly understood. Even a slight bump in the understanding will cause alot of problems. I know, I've had students who have been playing for 6, 7, 8 years come to me with some crazy ideas. Just alittle tune up an they we're using them 10 times to the effect they had before.

[griphon2]

I do but don't understand this, especially the explanation.
Discussing a chord in it's simplest, a dim7. Fdim7...
F Ab Cb Ebb.
Can be restated as:
F, Ab or G#, Cb or B, Ebb or D diminished 7th. the symmetry.
Can be restated as:
G7b9,Bb7b9,Db7b9,E7b9 this occurs by just moving the highest note to the bass. Moving the b9 bass by a 4th gives the same result. By moving the 5th to the 6th or b9 to #9 gives you a G13b9 or Db7#9. and so forth, just moving one finger. Thus giving one a dominant chord and function. Another trick is to move these changes as if in a diminished scale, both forms.
Gobbs of new dominant chords and relationships.
The same idea can be applied to Augmented.
Minor7b9 has no function, even with my limited understanding of your view. I don't understand. Why have a minor7b9?

[chris mood]

A common way for learning jazz chords is to keep everything in 4 note voicings, 1 note for each finger. What you do is learn maj, min, dom, dim, and aug as 7th chords in all inversions up and down the neck of the guitar, I use str. combinations 1234, 2345, 2346, and 3456. To create chord extensions use this formula to substitute chord tones: root-9th, 3rd to 11th, 5th -13th, and 7th to 6th. You will start to see that when you use this formula chords will change. An A minor 9th chord becomes a Cmaj 7th chord when the formula for adding on the 9th is added above, etc....it helps for learning chord substitution, voice leading, and creative ways to play chord extensions.

[chris mood]

sorry about the min7b5b9 confusion, this was only used as an example on my reply on p7 to Noticing, that you could use d-7 as a chord sub for b-7b5, and that if you stacked all the notes in piano style on the staff w/the bass supplying the root B you would have a B-7b5b9 chord. Thats all! minor7b5b9 has no real use in traditional music at all, neither jazz or classical, it's more of an advant garde sound.

[griphon2]

Thanks Chris, what's really cool is all this stuff looks like something. An easy way to memorize it. If you can finger it, you can play it, with any luck ultimately hear it. I could probably boil Van Eps to a single page, but it take years to use it. I use terms like, extend and squeeze, by finger. I'm not real concerned about the theory, until it can be played. Mechanics and ear. You can't hear without the mechanics. The best way to understand it, is play and get paid.

[Niklasl]

Thanks alot for the tip griphon2.
It will surely help.

Later

[griphon2]

Sorry I missed another post. I can't alway be here to keep up. I must apologize.
B-7b5 is a half diminished chord. (this chord specifically, is vii or an extended V in C, but it doesn't have to be). It moves exactly the same way as full diminished chords. In a traditional sense, they move as leading tone. In American or jazz music they are used as a ii, V, or a Valtered, a V substitution, a b5 sub, or a symmetrical sub, but still dominant.

[chris mood]

In jazz they are used as a ii chord in a minor key, or as a substitution for a dominant chord (b-7b5 instead of G7), even as a b5 sub (A-7, Ab-7b5, Gmaj7) never heard of a minor7b5 being used as a 5 chord though?

[chris mood]

I just wanted to take a moment to plug these books. I've read a lot of theory books but these are by far the most comphrensive books on jazz theory I have ever read. Jazz Theory Resources by Bert Ligon, tonal ,harmonic,melodic,& rhythmic organization of jazz...Houston Publishing, distibuted by Hal Leonard. There's 2 volumes, each one is about 500 pages long and packed w/musical examples. He also explains the connection to classical theory and how cadances were altered and so on.

[griphon2]

m7b5 is a 9th without the root. A very common chord trick in blues. It's still a dominant. Blues ends in dominant. Classical theory does not cover this problem. Em7b5 is a C9.
This logic was really made famous by Joe Pass, in jazz. One pinky made it a 13th. The more progressive players just played off the fingering. The inside fingering looks like the standard diminished.


[Edited by griphon2 on 01-20-2003 at 03:18 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

WOW alot has happened in a short time. Back to explaining more stuff, whew! :)

Griphon-

Originally posted by griphon2
I do but don't understand this, especially the explanation.
Discussing a chord in it's simplest, a dim7. Fdim7...
F Ab Cb Ebb.
Can be restated as:
F, Ab or G#, Cb or B, Ebb or D diminished 7th. the symmetry.


The first analysis is correct. A Fdim7 consists of F, Ab, Cb, and Ebb. But it can never be restated in any other way, symmetry or not. The reason is the formula that makes up the dim7 chord, which is 1, b3, b5, bb7. This is the universal understanding for this chord. If you wish to change it to suit your purposes, feel free. But I warn you it's either going to limit you on understanding and/or cause alot of confusion. Now to understand formual is simple. Each note (letter) has a different number in the formula. So it's like counting in sequence of numbers and letters. F would be 1, 2 would be G, 3 would be A, and so on. I hope you see the connection. Ab can not be written as G#, cause G# would be the number 2 or the next note after F. The formula for a dim7 is NOT 1, #2, b5, bb7. Same with the other notes. I explained this somewhere before, so I don't feel like explaining all over again. It's so simple that if you don't get it please go blow your brains out. Just kidding :)

Now the second thing you wrote about, I'm going to take to a very simple way of explaining it. I'm going to stay with the Fdim7 chord. Here are the other chords that exist with the same notes, just "rewritten" as you would say.

Fdim7: F, Ab, Cb, Ebb.
*Abdimadd6: Ab, Cb, Ebb, F (also Abdim7, but the F is a 6th up from Ab, it would need to be Gbb.)
*Cbdimadd6: Cb, Ebb, F, Ab (the F should be Gbb.)
*Ebbdimadd6: Ebb, F, Ab, Cb (the F should be Gbb, and the Ab should be Bbb.)

* these chords aren't even right. The Cbdimadd6 can actually be said to be Bdim7 (B, D, F, Ab) but not in this form (confusion). Same with the Ebbdimadd6 which can be written as Ddim7 (D, F, Ab, B), but again these spellings do not consist with the original Fdim7. See where it all FALLS APART.

Their is more wrong with this approach.

What is actually the main difference between the 4 of them? The "ROOT" is the difference, I've been telling you Griphon since I first talked to you. The Root is the most important note of any scale or chord. Now I'll explain why. What note in a chord does the Bass Player pay more attention to?? THE ROOT. Especially if he only has the chord progression to work with, and he's in a Jam band. This also works with anyone else in the band also.

Now I'm going to break that down into simpler and more correct terms. I'm going to stay with the bass players prospective here also. A easier way to put those complex chords into simpler forms is to use Inversions. Here it is again.

Fdim7 (also known as first inversion): F, Ab, Cb, Ebb
Fdim7 second inversion: Ab, Cb, Ebb, F
Fdim7 third inversion: Cb, Ebb, F, Ab
Fdim7 fourth inversion: Ebb, F, Ab, Cb

Now what's the same about those chords? They are all Fdim7 chords. Again, it's so much SIMPLER to learn 1 chord rather than 4. It's also easier for the bassist to understand what to play. If a bassist sees a Fdim7 second inversion chord written, he knows to play Ab. Third inversion Cb, and Fourth inversion Ebb. Most bass lines written in Blues or Jazz are often rooted from inversions, so it's crucial for the bassist.

Now here's where it can become confusing. Say the guitarist is playing a Ebbdimadd6 chord (which I doubt), and you want the bassist to play the second inversion (F). Ok first he's got think of what notes make up that such an uncommon chord, then figure out what the second inversion of that chord would be. Alot of work for something so simple as saying play the root of the Fdim7 chord.

Now how do they know which one to write. It's all goes by the flow of music in it's Root form. The ear identifies with the root and then everything else is stack on harmonically to produce chords. Since genres of music have been around for many years, people have figured out which chords work better with certain music. I'm tired, so I'm done writting for now. Hopefully you got it. Latr

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-20-2003 at 05:06 PM]

[griphon2]

Sorry, I don't agree. Without 3rds, 7 or 7ths, you have Gregorian. Root is not the most important. Where it's going is more important and 3rds, 7, and 7ths determine that, not root.

In and by itself, a diminished chord is a diminished chord at root. The symmetry of the chord is that it is root, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5 and so forth, at any point. The diminished chord is NOT just one chord BUT 4 new chords. How many ways can I put it? The symmetry of the chord make it possible. The 1,b3,b5,bb7 are the same, no matter how you stack them. It doesn't matter. Augmented are the same. The key to usage is function, a Bach idea. V to I or i, your view.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-20-2003 at 06:01 PM]

[griphon2]

Another influence. Joe Diorio, the guitar instructor at the University of Miami, when the Dixie Dregs formed. Steve Morse, Jaco Pastouri,...

[chris mood]

Your talking like a bass player there Notice. The root is not very important (we just like to tell Bass players it is to make them feel special). The 3rd and 7th are the 2 most important notes of the chord. Play a dominant 7 chord, take away the root, it still sounds Dominant, take away the 5th, it is still functional. You can play through a whole 12bar blues prog. just using the intervals of 3rd & 7th. It's a pretty cool thing to do, you'll notice the 3rd & 7th of the 4 & 5 chords are located a half step above and below the 1.

[chris mood]

E-7b5 is a C9, yeah I would reffer to that as a chord substitution, But what the hell does Joes Pass know anyway ? lol

[chris mood]

Diminished 7th chords resolve by half steps on any of the 4 chord tones. Therefore F dim7 ( F Ab Cb/B and Ebb/D) will resolve to some sort of chord with the root of Gb, A, C, or Eb. ANY CHORD TONE WITHIN THE DIM7 CAN FUNCTION AS THE ROOT. There are only 3 diminished keys and 2 wholetone keys.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
Sorry, I don't agree. Without 3rds, 7 or 7ths, you have Gregorian. Root is not the most important. Where it's going is more important and 3rds, 7, and 7ths determine that, not root. [Edited by griphon2 on 01-20-2003 at 06:01 PM]

Root is not the most important?? Ok without a root, your naming of chords would be just "m7b9", but see you don't need a root. Bass players view or not? I’ll take this to the guitar soloist point of view. Say you want to solo over a Dom7 chord, and you want to use a mixolydian mode? What do you use a D mixolydian, E, F, G#??? You need to know the root of the chord. Without the root note of a chord, there is no direction. Why even have key signatures without a Root? Why even have chords without establishing the root?

Here's how chords are made. You probably know this but let me refresh you. The root is the first established, It is the foundation of what the over all sound of ANY chord is. The other notes add harmony to the root note. So everything that follows the root is an extension. Emin is built by taking the note "E" then adding a major 3rd, then a minor 3rd on that. Or another way which is more correct, E with the extension add major 3rd and perfect 5th. E7 is the same, with the major understood; you’re just adding a 7th to that E. Getting it? Maybe you would rather start with the 3rd and 7th interval and then figure out the root. You must be dyslexic, or you just like making things ten times harder! MOVEMENTS??? I though we were talking about the single analysis of ONE chord.

Originally posted by griphon2
In and by itself, a diminished chord is a diminished chord at root.

I've been trying to tell you this from the beginning!!!!

Originally posted by griphon2
The diminished chord is NOT just one chord BUT 4 new chords.

What??? You just contradicted yourself and went backwards with that statement. First of all, a simple diminished chord (as you stated), only has 3 notes within it (1, b3, b5). I think you talking about a diminished 7th chord. I clearly stated in the last post, how those chords do not exist. Go look at it again. Ask berklee if you need to, they'll say the same thing. What I think you are talking about is ~>INVERSIONS<~. Your theory on this matter says there is no need for this, especially in Jazz music where it is Dominantly found. Go get a sheet of written jazz music and you will see. Inversion do not change the chord name to another, it's like taking the formula 1, b3, b5, bb7 and doing this b3, b5, bb7, 1 which is a second inversion. Every chord is the same, augmented, diminished, even 13th chords. Is this what you mean by stacking them differently? If so, quit writing about it. Please take 5 minutes and look up the word Inversion in some sort of music dictionary so you can understand this!

I am a bass player, and a guitar player. I just used the bass player view in the last post because of the explanation of Inversion. Bass players look at this over everything else. It tells the bassist what note to play over a chord. The idea is not to focus from the bassist point of view (I know none of you are bassist, I think) but the view of inversion. When you take away the root of a dominant 7 chord, you are left with a diminished chord. We went through this before. When you take that note out of the picture it is NO LONGER a Dominant 7th chord, it becomes diminished. UNLESS the bass plays the root of the dominant 7th, while the guitar plays the diminished chord. Maybe it's not the bass player playing the root, it's the backing vocal that is singing the root. This structure gives you the building blocks for a complete musical picture, not just guitar. (Remember chords are the building blocks of music.) If you leave it to just guitar, and write it as diminished, that's all your left with. So where the freedom in that comes from I don't know.

Does the freedom come from substituting chords? Ok envision this, well have the guitarist play a E7b5 chord, then the bass will walk in the key of C major (since C9 would be in that scale). Then have a solo come in playing in the scale E lydian (which works well over the 7b5 chord.) The vocal will follow the key of A minor. Now all those views exist with each other, as you have been saying. But honestly how good to you think it's going to sound?? You know and I know it's going to be a piece of crap! Why? Because everybody is following something completely different, thus what I've been saying CONFUSION. Now to fix it, Guitarist will keep the E7b5 chord, bass will play a mix between 2nd (G#) and 1st (E) inversion of E7b5, vocal and lead will both follow E lydian. Problem fixed, this segment in music would be written as the chord E7b5. And it will sound good.
If you wanted it to be C9 instead of E7b5, the arrangement may go like this. Guitar plays a C9 chord, the bass will play a mix between 2nd (E) and 5th (G) inversion of C9, and the solo may play through any C major scale along with the vocals. See the C9 chord will naturally produce rather different results.

Of course you can just play 2 intervals of a chord over and over, but how you going to name that chord?? 2 notes is just an interval, you will need three to make a chord. So what is the vocals, bass, keys, or other guitar doing? Even if it is solo, something is needed to explain it's part in the music. Especially if you plan on bring something back in with it, maybe the root. Whatever. Just read the previous paragraph and you will see the logic I am presenting.

Originally posted by chris mood
Therefore F dim7 ( F Ab Cb/B and Ebb/D).

Chris, the notes B and D: DO NOT exist in the Fdim7 chord.

Here's the formula, which exists, with this chord (one note at a time). (Italics mean not in the chord)

F=1, G=2, Ab=b3, Bb=4,(B=#4), Cb=b5, Db=b6,(D=6), Ebb=bb7.

The ONLY Dim7 formula= 1, b3, b5, bb7.

The dim7 which you say can be written: 1, b3, #4, 6. (F, Ab, B, D)

Do you see the difference??

The note B from F is an augmented fourth interval. The chord is called diminished, and augmented 4th does not exist. The note D is a 6th above F; the chord is a "7th" not a Fdimadd6. There is no "add6" extension there! Do you understand?? If you don't believe me look it up in one of your books. Also read up on Inversions. Please!

[chris mood]

1st of all, I'm not saying the notes of an F dim7 are F Ab B and D , I KNOW that would be an incorrect way of viewing that chord. All that I did was to write in the enharmonics to a couple of notes. Fdim7; F Ab Cb/B Ebb/D I do this because those 4 notes and there enharmonic spellings spell out 4 dim7 chords. It is good to think this way, because you would not believe how many times in written music and charts do I find a chord progression like Abdim7 going to C. Abdim7 does not go to C, Bdim7 does, but still you will find this prog. written in some variation all over in jazz and pop charts.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by chris mood
1st of all, I'm not saying the notes of an F dim7 are F Ab B and D , I KNOW that would be an incorrect way of viewing that chord. All that I did was to write in the enharmonics to a couple of notes. Fdim7; F Ab Cb/B Ebb/D I do this because those 4 notes and there enharmonic spellings spell out 4 dim7 chords.

Ok, I see that but your also missing what I'm saying. Fdim7 when written correctly as you said does not contain four other dim7 chords. Your confusing enharmonic notes as being being taken both ways to fit this theory. There is only one way to write a Fdim7, and only one way to write Abdim7.

My point is, the Fdim7 chord is one chord and an Abdim7 is another. Yeah you can think of a Fdim7 chord and then just play the same fingering on the guitar only starting on Ab, and you will have Abdim7. I cleared this in the first post about this discussion. What I am saying is they are not the same chord. Watch:

Fdim7: F, Ab, Cb, Ebb
Abdim7: Ab, Cb, Ebb, Gbb

Although Gbb and F and enharmonic notes, there are not the same in each chord. Their function in the chord is also different. So they are not the same chord. See this is my point! Even if you switch them:

Fdim7 to -> Gbb, Ab, Cb, Ebb = N.C
Abdim7 to -> Ab, Cb, Ebb, F = Abdimadd6

So there are not related, that's what I'm saying. YOU CAN NOT WRITE ONE CHORD AS FOUR OTHER CHORDS. Altering, even the enharmonic notes, is changing that chord structure. Yes, this will work just by looking at the guitar, and I believe it is easy to see. I am talking about relating them, and they are not the same. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Originally posted by chris mood
Abdim7 does not go to C, Bdim7 does, but still you will find this prog. written in some variation all over in jazz and pop charts.

Neither Abdim7 and Bdim7 have anything to do with Fdim7 as you are saying. Why is that important when it comes to explaining the relationship between those and Fdim7? This is exactly why I say it is confusing. There is no relationship between these three chords, but I'm sure if you dig far enough into it you will find something. But it's easier to look at it as Abdim7 to C. This chord progression again has nothing to do with Fdim7. You can't substitute the Fdim7 instead of the Abdim7 either and expect to get the same function.

I hope you are seeing my point now.

[chris mood]

I understand what your are saying. I gave the example of Abdim7 going to C as an example of why it is important to understand how the enharmonics make this chord the same as the others. I think it is important for musicians to understand both veiws, the correct theoretical way of spelling and resolving a diminished7, and the relationship the diminished7 chord has with it's other chord tones. Let me give you an example why.

If you close your eyes and someone plays Bdim7 in 3rd inversion (Bo7/Ab) going to C, most peoples 1st instinct would be to dictate that progression as Abo7 To C, which is not theoryretically correct, and may leave some people who have limited knowledge of theory baffled. (why is this Abo7 chord going to C, my guitar teacher told me dim7ths always resovle by half step..etc, etc)

So therefore I feel it is important to know and teach both veiws, after all we're arguing over enharmonics here, to the ear it's all the same.

[Niklasl]

Hello
I really need some help and since you guys seems to know alot of theory you can correct me and help me with this stuff if you'd like.

Ok.. This is a few things I've learned by reading some of your posts:

A scale always begin with a root tone. And the number of modes a scale has depends on the numbers of tones included in that scale. A mode of a scale is when you begin with another tone than the root tone in that scale but in the same pattern. Some scales look like they would fit in as a mode of another scale, right ?
But how do you know what tone is a root tone ? Is it like an E,F,G,A .etc ?

And then I also would like some help with the following:
This is a scale I often uses but I don't know the name or even if it is a scale or a mode of a scale

Let's say the rytmh chords in the background is
A-C-G-D looped

Let me call this scale 1.A (whatever..mode or scale dunno)
E||----------------------------5--8--
B||-----------------------5--8------- and then backwards
G||------------------5--7------------
D||------------5--7------------------
A||-------5--7-----------------------
E||--5--8----------------------------


Then I also can proced with this

E||------------------------------8--10
B||------------------------8--10----- and then backwards
G||-------------------7-10-----------
D||-------------7--10-----------------
A||--------8-10-----------------------
E||--8--10----------------------------

Then like this:
(Its exactly the same kind of pattern as scale 1.A but
one step higher, it also fits in with the chords)

E||------------------------------10--13
B||-------------------------10-13------ and then
G||-------------------10--12----------- backwards
D||-------------10--12-----------------
A||-------10--12-----------------------
E||-10--13-----------------------------

Then to scale 2. but one step higher .etc

So whats the names for these scales/modes ?
I would love some help

[noticingthemistake]

Chris-

Yeah I agree. The only reason I keep explaining it is because they aint the same. I'm not talking about hearing it, I'm talking about the chord structure of a chords. That's all. The only part I disagree on is the fact that a Abdim7 exists within a Fdim7. Using the rules that chordal structure is built on.

Hi Niklasl.

Originally posted by Niklasl
Some scales look like they would fit in as a mode of another scale, right ?
But how do you know what tone is a root tone ? Is it like an E,F,G,A .etc ?

Yes. The C major scale has the same notes as D dorian. The root of a scale is always the letter before the scale name. Like E major, the root would be E. In written music the root is often written by key signature. The group of sharps or flats before the time signature. Each one has a name. When looking at tabs like you wrote, it is usually the first note you write.

So for the examples you gave, all of them are in the key of A minor, and the root is A. As you can see the chord progression begins with A and so does the scales. To tell what scale/or mode it is, you have to look at the pattern that follows the root note. All scales/modes have a certain pattern (also called formula) that distinquished them. It's good to learn these so you can identify them.


The individual scales you wrote are:

The first one is an A minor pentatonic scale.
The second is C Chinese Scale.

The Chinese scale is a mode of the major pentatonic scale built on the fifth. But not to confuse you too much, it's still in the A minor scale. Hope it doesn't confuse you.

The third is a D minor pentatonic scale.

Now with all these put together you have built a A natural minor scale.

Hope this helps.

[Niklasl]

Thanks alot man.
That explains alot of stuff.

[chris mood]

But why are you trying to deny something that is inevitably true? Students should be taught the truth, and the truth is F, Ab, B, & D diminished 7 all contain the same "pitches".
Notice I used the word pitch.
Now if we define enharmonic as being 2 names for the same pitch, then the above statement is true...Check Mate!

[aiwass]

Holy sh*t...

[noticingthemistake]

OMG!!! Chris, why are you bring this up again and again?! I said already in last few post, I AGREE!!!!! I'll write it again, I AGREE!!!! Please make a note of this before you write back with the same agruement over and over. Your agrueing about something completely different from what I am talking about! LOOK:

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I'm not talking about hearing it, I'm talking about the chord structure of a chords. That's all.

You hear pitches right? Ebb and D are the same pitch. I know this. So why did you write that last post?? And Sorry, No check mate for you, my side of the discussion was never about pitches. Again look at my quote.

Now they may contain the same pitches, BUT the notes are not the same:

Fdim7: F, Ab, Cb, Ebb
Abdim7: Ab, Cb, Ebb, Gbb

Ok now look at those two chords and what NOTES make up those chord? DO YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE????

F and the Gbb are different! They sound the same, but the notes that make up each chord need to be different for the CHORD STRUCTURE TO BE CORRECT!!!!

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I'm not talking about hearing it, I'm talking about the chord structure of a chords. That's all.

BOO-YAH!!! :D

Wait not finished. Since you are so hooked on the sound of these chords being the same. TRY THIS:

Play a Fdim7
E:--1---
B:--0---
G:--1---
D:--0---
A:--2---
E:--1---

Now play a Abdim7
E:--4---
B:--6---
G:--4---
D:--X---
A:--5---
E:--4---

Ok, now Chris since they have the same pitches. Please tell me they sound the same, Please!

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT INVERTING THEM! Just the sound of the pitches and the difference they produce based on the simple form of each chord.

Don't bother writting "oh you just trasposed it", cause what you are inverting saying is chords with the same PITCHES should all sound the same! Now I just stuck my foot up your kings arse!

Please feel free to post another theory on this matter, and I will punch a couple holes in it too.

Sorry man, you seem kool but your not getting what I'm saying. Your lack of paying attention to what I have been saying all this time is what has made this an agruement. Later.

[chris mood]

I don't have to shift the Fo7 from it's current position to make it an Abo7, all of the tones I need are all ready there.

[chris mood]

That particular voicing you wrote out and labeled Fo7 resolves quite nicely to the open A.

[griphon2]

I must correct my misstatement. bb3rd, is really a 2nd or a 9th.

[griphon2]

I'll try this just one more time. Fdim7

Appears 4 times in harmonic minor. Actually 8 times counting enharmonic spellings, taking the logic to it's most ridiculous end. Using exactly the 1,b3,b5,bb7 rule. If you define melodic minor in a classical context, (I don't) the same 8 times appear again. Simply put:
1. Fdim7 is vii in Gbm or enharmonic E#dim7 in F#m
2. Bdim7 is vii in Cm
3. Ddim7 is vii in Ebm or enharmonic Cdouble sharpdim7 in D#m
4. G#dim7 is vii in Am

Fdim7 is actually the same chord.
Spelling and enharmonic spellings are major problems for most guitar players. Fdim7, Bdim7, Ddim7, G#dim7, plus the two enharmonic dim7, in the above example, are exactly the same chord. For visual proof on the guitar, take the standard diminished fingering and move it a minor 3rd up or down. The spelling of the notes may be different, but the notes themselves are exactly the same. There are only 3 basic fingerings on the guitar for dim7.

(A trick, I use this logic with all chords e.g. ii, iii,vi are minor chords in major, iv and ii in HM or MM, respectively, not forgetting the i in both. Another trick is m7-5 appears vii in major keys, ii in HM, vi AND vii in MM, scale and logic options)

To expand on Chris' point... A very common incorrectly written chord progression: (4 beats per bar) / G D/F# / Em / Am / D Ebdim / Em7 Fdim / F#m7 / C/G D / G ///

Note: a few of these changes are not in G. There are many soloing options for this progression.

[griphon2]

Knowing that a dim7 is actually a large V7b9 with extensions, a dim7 can be rewritten as a dominant chord.
As a dominant, the resolution can be up or down by half step AND by 4th and 5th.

[griphon2]

I would almost never play a C maj scale over a C9.

[TheDirt]

Let me try to simplify each of your points and stop this silly argument. Chrismood, you are looking at the way chords SOUND. Noticingthemistake, you are looking
at the way chords SHOULD BE WRITTEN. You two are arguing your points, but to have an argument, you need to argue about the same thing, and you're each talking about different things. In actuality, you are BOTH RIGHT about your points. Griphon2, you are talking about a technique you use to make chords easier for yourself. Your method is hard to teach a beginner, but something that someone experienced with chords can grasp.


Let's play this...

Fº7
|-1-|
|-0-|
|-1-|
|-0-|
|-2-|
|-1-|

From bottom to top that's F, Cb, Ebb, Ab, Cb, F

Now, let's play this...

Abº7/Gbb
|-1-|
|-0-|
|-1-|
|-0-|
|-2-|
|-1-|

From bottom to top, this one is Gbb, Cb, Ebb, Ab, Cb, Gbb

Enharmonically these two chords sound EXACTLY THE SAME, however, they are WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY depending upon musical context.

Supporting Chris - If I were sitting alone with my guitar and I played 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, I could tell myself that I am playing an Fº7. I could also tell myself I'm playing an Abº7/Gbb. I could tell myself I'm playing an E7b9/F without the root. Hell, I could say I'm playing a rootless C+7sus4/F. In all these cases I'd be right, because there's no musical context, and no key signature. However I name the chord is for my personal convenience.

Supporting Noticingthemistake - I'm playing in a band situation and our song goes Gbmaj7 x2, Ebm7 x2, Cbmaj7 x2, Dbb7 x1, then the chord 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, then the chord MUST be Fº7 due to the chord signature of Gb Major. This CANNOT be Abº7 because the chord will resolve to Gb, and Abº7 would resolve to Bbb.

Supporting griphon2 - Griphon's point is a bit difficult to grasp in functionality for most, but his point is quite valid. It seems that he views multi-note chords as smaller chords superimposed over a root. This is a technique that pianists use quite often to make major and minor 7th chords sound much more lush. As a guitar player, when I see F#m7, I think of this (copy and paste into notepad)...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
•|---|--o|---|---|--•|---|---|---|--•|---|---|--•|
|---|--•|---|---|--•|---|--o|---|---|--•|---|---|
|---|--•|---|---|---|--•|---|---|--•|---|--o|---|
|---|--•|---|--o|---|---|--•|---|---|---|--•|---|
•|---|---|---|--•|---|---|--•|---|--o|---|---|--•|
•|---|--o|---|---|--•|---|---|---|--•|---|---|--•|

and so on into the upper register of the guitar. As a piano player, however, I often view an F#m7 chord as an A/F# chord. My left hand will play and F# and it's octave in the bass and my right hand will play an A Major arpeggio or chord form. This sounds GREAT, and is much easier than thinking, "Ok, I'll play an F# with my left hand and play F#m7 without the F# with my right hand to emphasize the 3rd and 7th."

I've worked on this idea a while and have simplified it quite a bit... The first column is the chord you're trying to create. The second is the chord you superimpose over the root of the chord you're trying to make, and the third column is the distance (the intervalic distance) from the root that you play the superimposed chord. (once again, copy and paste into notepad)

|---------------|--------------|--------------------|
| Chord Implied | Chord Played | Interval From Root |
|---------------|--------------|--------------------|
| maj7 | m | M3 |
| m7 | maj | m3 |
| 7 | º | M3 |
| maj9 | m7 | M3 |
| m9 | maj7 | m3 |
| 9 | m7b5 | M3 |
| sus2 | 5 | P5 |
| º7 | º | m3 |
|---------------|--------------|--------------------|

I could go on with this for more exotic chords, but you get my drift, right? This is not just for piano, though. If you have a bass player that steadily plays the root note, and there's a Cmaj7 coming up, then you could play an Em while he plays a C, and you'll get the Cmaj7 sound from the mix of the bass and your guitar. If an Asus2 is coming up, then the bassist plays the A and you play an E5 (powerchord). And as a fitting example for the overall conversation thus far - to get an Fº7 sound, the bassist can play an F while you play an Abº chord. Cool, eh? Everyone can get along now, right?

- The Dirt

P.S. - To tie in having the A/F# example... most people see the diagram as plain old F#m with the E thrown in. The diagram can also be viewed as plain old A Major with an F# thrown in. Look at the diagram... see your familiar A Major shapes?

P.P.S - ****!!! I wrote a lot... sorry for the super long reply.

[griphon2]

To stop this craziness. A diminished 7th is actually 2 (two)
diminished triads in one. That's why diminished is symmetrical. The dim7 is called a full diminished, also known as a double diminished. A half and full diminished 7th are DIFFERENT!

[TheDirt]

And to follow up on the chess analogy... STALEMATE!!!

[griphon2]

Dirt, that's pretty cool.

[griphon2]

More lush or to disguise actual harmony. Gives me more options.

[noticingthemistake]

Thank you Dirt. I was tired of writting about it. And it's nice to see someone knows where I am coming from.

[noticingthemistake]

I did see where both Griphon and chris were coming from. Dirt your view was right on, I was actually writting about how they work within the key before my internet disconnected. I should have brought that up before, but I couldn't seem to get anyone to understand where I was coming from first. But anyways, Im glad this silly confusion is over. I apologize if I said anything that came off to rude, it was just fustration. Latr

[noticingthemistake]

Chris, you wrote before that the Fdim7 goes nicely into the A major chord. You got the right idea, but remember diminished chords always move in half steps. F to A is not a half step. You would be looking for the G#dim7 chord instead of the Fdim7 chord. Since that is a half step. just trying to help you out.

The Fdim7 actually has 10 different ways of being written. Here they are.

Fdim7 : F, Ab, Cb, Ebb
Ddim7 : D, F, Ab, Cb
G#dim7 : G#, B, D, F
Abdim7 : Ab, Cb, Ebb, Gbb
Bdim7 : B, D, F, Ab
Ddimadd6 : D, F, Ab, B
Fdimadd6 : F, Ab, B, D
G#dimadd6 : G#, B, D, E#
Abdimadd6 : Ab, Cb, Ebb, F
Bdimadd6 : B, D, F, G#

Now you can clearly see that NO two chords have exactly the same spelling. There is always some enharmonic difference between them. The reason for so many is because they have serve different purposes, pretaining to key and movement they make. Here they all are again with the purpose they are used within a key, I'm going to stay with the major/minor key for simplicity.

Fdim7: vii7 in the key of Gb Major, or ii7 in key of Eb minor

Ddim7: vii7 in the key of Eb Major, or ii7 in key of C minor

G#dim7: vii7 in the key of A Major, or ii7 in key of F# minor

Abdim7: Not in Major or minor scale/

Bdim7: vii7 in the key of C major, or ii7 in key of A minor

Ddimadd6: vii6 in the key of Eb major, or ii6 in key of C minor

Fdimadd6: vii6 in the key of Gb Major, or ii6 in key of Eb minor

G#dimadd6: vii6 in the key of A major, or ii6 in key of F# minor

Abdimadd6: Not in Major or Minor scale/

Bdimadd6: vii6 in the key of C Major, or ii6 in key of A minor

Hope that clears up some stuff.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-21-2003 at 06:32 PM]

[griphon2]

I thought Dirt, the great pragmatist, solved this problem.
It's directly or indirectly, just POV, point of view. Ironically, we all could work together for the same end. There are many levels to this, let's not make the simple and complicated more complicated. It could work, using a football analogy, like a hand-off. Fumbling could be fun, interesting and a learning experience for all. You can't make a mistake by doing nothing or anything, unless nothing or anything is the mistake.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-21-2003 at 09:59 PM]

[griphon2]

This got lost in the compliments and who said what.

A diminished 7th is actually 2 (two)
diminished triads in one. That's why diminished is symmetrical. The dim7 is called a full diminished, also known as a double diminished. A half and full diminished 7th are DIFFERENT! but still move the same.

[griphon2]

Dirt brought a major point. It's taken this time to remember. My view as a guitar player is I am just as good, competent and proficient, as any piano player, but better. We, as guitar players are limited as to the piano, as like all other instruments. But piano is paramount. (Berlioz was a guitar player) I am frightfully annoyed that piano is the ultimate instrument.
No one can graduate from any good, honest, educational institution without taking a piano practicum. Sorry, I am arrogant and as erudite as any piano player. I did my graduating practicum on GUITAR and PIANO, just to prove I am as arrogant and erudite as the twit that judges the practicum, and that the guitar is equal, player notwithstanding. You can be the greatest guitar player in the world and NOT get your degree if you can't pass the piano practicum. I find this extremely irritating but nonetheless, true. Maybe, it's the reason why I take this or my view so personally.

[chris mood]

Pawn takes night

[noticingthemistake]

I didn't miss it Griphon. About the guitar being under-rated as a intsrument. I think it's just the what view you choose to look at it with. A pianoist is probably going to have the view that his/her instrument is superior and those who master it deserve more recognizition. The guitarist may see it the other way around. I think the piano does have alot of attributes that guitar doesn't have, like more octaves and the capabilities to play up to 10 note chords. Where the guitar only has up to 6 octaves, and the ability to play only 6 note chords. You can do things on the guitar that you can't get out of a piano, like whammy bar, pick slides, distortion, and tons of other stuff. Each instrument is designed for a certain tasks, so I wouldn't say any are more superior than others. The bottom line is your able to create music with all instruments, and thats what there meant for. Although I must say Pianos are more universal than guitars, but neither compare to an organ. I think that's probably the hardest instrument to learn. Some say string instruments, like violin, are harder because with those instruemnts you have to create pitch. If you've ever tried to play a violin, you do what you think violinists do but it's the most horrible sound. That's because you have to create the sound perfectly. It's the equivalent of strumming a guitar with perfect technique (motion, tension, speed, everything) everytime. That would be hard.

[TheDirt]

I can play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as well as some other melodies by opening my mouth a certain amount and rapping my knuckles firmly upon my head. Now that's a hard instrument to play.

Other underrated instruments:


1. Oral percussion with simultaneous humming - difficult to grasp, but pretty cool when you get it down.

2. Bongo drum - Some very tight grooves can be established with this little baby.

3. Whistling - Good whistling can be quite enchanting. Tight, controlled vibrato is pretty difficult!

[u10ajf]

The "Gypsy" scale is "the Hungarian minor" scale. A scale resembling the harmonic minor scale, but with an augmented fourth (c, d, e-flat, f-sharp, g, a-flat, b, c'). It is called the Gypsy scale because of its exotic sound, and its use in Hungarian music. So I think you have modes confused with scales, maybe.

There is alot of misinformation out there. one website actually said the gypsy scale was the harmonic minor! Go to a big fat music dictionary, or here's a website I found that was accurate. http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/textg/Gypsyscale.html [/B][/QUOTE]

ARRRHH I wish there was some way of standardising these things, I thought Gypsy scale was new on me but I've heard it under two different names: Oriental (Dave Celentano, Killer scales and modes) and Bhairava. Whatever you call it it's most cool. I've also heard a gypsy scale that was something else entirely. AGGHHH.

I don't know if you guys are all familiar with the fretboard mapper at:

http://www.power-chord.com/gaff/mapper/?verbose=1

but I'm willing to bet there are tons of different scales on their that are just modes of each other or even synonyms for the same bloody mode. It makes life very confusing.
It's like the problem scientists had classifying animals and plants until they introduced classifications in latin/greek and made it all formal. Now scientists can talk to other scientists and know what the other is refering to unambiguously. Give us Musicians our own Linnaeus!

[u10ajf]

Think of the Hungarian minor (Gypsy scale) as just another diatonic scale like the natural minor

No offense but I thought diatonic refered to two types of intervals, the scale you outline has three like Harmonic minor does, that is, semitone, tone, minor third.

[chris mood]

that virginia tech site is pretty cool

[TheDirt]

A diatonic scale is a scale consisting of eight sounds with seven intervals, of which two are semitones and five are whole tones.

u10ajf, I think that the person who wrote that ("think of the Hungarian scale as another diatonic scale") meant that rather than viewing the Hungarian scale as a scale you can use in just one case, that it should be viewed like the major scale, and can be used with any chords that implies the Hungarian scale or any of its modes.

For example, take the Harmonic Minor scale. Instead of thinking, ok, I can use A Harmonic Minor over a progression in A Minor, and that's the only use for A Harmonic Minor, think mroe openly such as, I have a vamp on E Major. I can play ANY SCALE with E, G#, and B in it. I can play in E Major, E Lydian... hmm, A Harmonic Minor has E, G#, and B, so I could use that too! Sepcifically, you'd be using the 5th mode of A Harmonic Minor.

[griphon2]

Thanks again THEDIRT, the great pragmatist.

In modes thread, page 1 (mode names in HM and MM or JMM, depending on view.)

Tricks in parans on page 12. (knowing where chords are.)

In box thread, page 1, the actual mode trick (using major scales only, and then how to modify them)HM=major scale with a #5, JMM=a major scale with b3.

Pentatonic fusion (maj and min) page 3. (fusing maj and min pentatonic that results into a major scale + 1 or the dorian mode +1) Best result is per chord or tonal center.

These are 4 different ways to get the same result, quickly.

This is Guitar Tricks. One can do the research for these names. The names are a waste of time, unless they're needed. This is theory and harmony in a nutshell. The key word is nutshell. The trick is usage.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

I was noticing my mistake as well. That's true. The gypsy scale is not a diatonic scale, although I was taken out of context. good catch!

I have a question, Why is there a thread about the modes of the harmonic minor, when there is only one mode in this scale that is tonaly effective? Have any of you actually tried to write music in the other six modes? Good luck, because not too many have in the last few hundred years.

[aiwass]

Well the phrygian dominant is both sonorous and effective. It's used in everything from a few Yngwie songs to death metal to (yuck) the latest Korn song.

But I agree that the other modes are hard to compose with. Then again, that also applies to some of the diatonic modes, too.

I doubt anyone will ever have a radio hit with a Locrian-based composition.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Very very true! I once read that not one single folksong in the locrian mode had ever been documented by an ethnomusicalogist. This mode is definately the "BLACK SHEEP" mode of the diatonic scale. They didn't even use this scale in the ancient modal system of the middle ages. I bet they wined about the dim5th, and claimed it sounded wicked! "death to all evil musicians who play the devil's music"!

[aiwass]

Yeah. They also avoided the Lydian mode because of the dim5th, but I don't see why, since the Lydian mode is very much melodic and sonorous.

Just check out the Simpsons theme!

[JOHN JAUNESE]

I heard that also, about the Simpson's theme in the lydian mode. Is it true? You won't catch me playing that theme on the guitar.
I like the phygian mode of the diatonic, as well as the aoelian, and Ionian of course, but the best scale for classical music will always be the Harmonic minor.

[aiwass]

True. I'm taking Music Theory in high school right now, where we analyze alot of classical rules and principles, and you hardly ever see any classical pieces in natural minor.

[griphon2]

If one uses a typical spanish type progression e.g E F G,
more than likely one would play E phrygian or a C maj scale.
This scale would make the mode sound spanish.
If one were to play a progression like E G C D E, playing a C maj scale based on Em would give a completely different sound result. This would sound very rock. One should analyze in terms of tensions per chord. None of these chords are in E except E. G and C are in E phrygian, but not functioning as phrygian. It's the tensions of the scale against harmony or chords that give the sound. Or make the music move in a certain or specific direction.

[aiwass]

If you want a Spanish sound, it would be more common to use the Phrygian dominant, i.e. E major, F major, G# diminished, a minor, etc...

It helps augment the almost chromatic nature of the flamenco style, since, after you hear the E major chord, F major is probably the most unlikely chord to follow.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE
Have any of you actually tried to write music in the other six modes? Good luck, because not too many have in the last few hundred years.


I think that does nothing but provoke me to write in such keys. I'm just one of those guys whose always trying to do something new. Just the fact that it is so rarely used is an open door for me. Of course, the sound you get from these modal compositions isn't exactly radio friendly. It's too weird, but I think that's art. Look at people like Piccaso (spellcheck), who took a different path from all the other artists. Not comparing myself to Picasso but that's the path I would rather take. Most music out today is so strictly feed on Diatonic principles that it makes everything sound the same. I think since the organized teaching of music began, more boundaries have been put up than the idea behind its freedom.

Here's an idea on what I found is fustrating with writing in these modes, and what helps correct this and make it more acceptable to the ear. Most of you probably know this, but this is what I have found that works and what usually doesn't.

Say you write a song in Spanish Phrygian. You must first understand what the chordal structure is within that scale.
Which is : I II iiio IV vo VI+ vii. As say the key note is E. It would be E, F, G#dim, A, Bdim, C+, Dm. "+ means augmented, if anyone didn't know". Say this is the chord progression in the particular song, E, C+, Dm, G#dim. I don't know how it sounds, I'm just making it up to illustrate the idea.

Now here's where I find works. Take each chord in the chord progression and treat them differently when you choose to harmonize over it. E is easy, and major related scale. The C augmented is different. The Lydian Augmented scale works nicely over this. The Bdim is easy, try a Whole-half tone scale. And Dm, well any minor related scale.

The idea is to use different scales over top of each chord, Now here's where I find it doesn't work very well. Take that chord progression again, E, C+, Dm, G#dim. Using the Spanish Phrygian scale over the entire chord progression, usually doesn't produce good results. This is NO RULE, it's just that I find this method works better in this case. There are many factors I think in why it doesn't work well. One, and I think the biggest, is the scale produces a solid flow of tones, when the chord progression is rather dramatic.

Also, composing in modal scales opens up alot of doors for new ideas. Especially in the direction of Modulation. Augmented chords which are only one chord in the Diatonics scales, harmonic and melodic minor. Completely excluded in natural major and minor. They are found in other scales, especially the Whole Tone scale. So moving from different keys is alot more open when using these modes. So take advantage.

Hope this helps, if your interesting in trying these ideas. Sorry about the literature, I'm kinda in a hurry.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-26-2003 at 01:46 PM]

[Christoph]

The Simpsons theme is indeed in lydian . . . G lydian to be exact. I sat down and figured it out yesterday.

[griphon2]

I need to expand on my philosophy. It's loosely based on the
Lydian Chromatic Concept by George Russell. Tradition or Classical rules do not apply in American music because of the American tradition and/or melting pot. Classical music is based upon church tradition. American music is based on the overtone series. Classical tradition does not allow certain dissonances. It's unfortunate that American music in general, is taught in the Classical tradition. The rules simply do not apply. Nowaday professional musicians understand this problem succinctly. I will try to simplify this in upcoming thoughts. Overtones rule American music,
not traditional Classical theory or the Church. Modern musicians and advance guitar players have modified the Church modes in terms of the overtones of that mode.

[chris mood]

But the overtones were 1st documented by the Greeks, you make it sound like the Americans invented the overtone series.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

quote by noticingthemistakes
"I think that does nothing but provoke me to write in such keys"
If you think you can write music in the other six modes of the harmonic minor then that's amazing, because far more brilliant musicians than any of us have tried, and failed.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Quoted from noticingthemistakes
"Most music out today is so strictly feed on Diatonic principles that it makes everything sound the same"

___________________________________________________________

The major/minor system was developed three hundred years ago. It took the place of the old modal system. With the use of chromatics, temperance of the harmonic minor has made classical music less modal as well. Alot of classical music sounds the same too. I suggest you listen to rapp, and be thankful for the music system you have been given. If you are a student I suggest you keep, asking questions, and take no prisoners!

[griphon2]

Rap, is poets, that can't poet, and poets that can't sing.
There's been nothing! really original in 30 years. How boring!!!

[griphon2]

A major scale backwards. Yes, Americans DID create this music!

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
It's unfortunate that American music in general, is taught in the Classical tradition. The rules simply do not apply.

I don't think it's bad to teach classical theory, it's actually crucial. Classical theory encompasses the entire rage of music definition, which builds a solid foundation of understanding. What I mean be definition is, how chords are constructed, scales, basic harmony and melodic theory. What makes classical theory hard on the american based musician is that classical music follows a much more stricter base of rules. You could say the samething with Jazz theory trying to explain the theory behind Rock music. Although alot of things are the same, their are alot of things that traditionally don't work. A good thing to do is built a theory that supports your music, but don't be afraid to try different things.

Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE
If you think you can write music in the other six modes of the harmonic minor then that's amazing, because far more brilliant musicians than any of us have tried, and failed.


I must admit it's not easy, the chordal structure that exists within the harmonic minor is rather weird. Especially when based around one of it's modes other than the spanish phrygian. No matter what you do, everything sounds too weird. Then again sometimes thats what you want, depending on personal taste. Im guessing the most brilliant musicians thought of it as to weird and they just didn't get any use out of it. I personally think the chord progression VI-iio-IV has a nice expressive sound to it. It all matters if on if thats the kind of expression you want from the music. I've never written an entire composition in one of those modes though, so I'm not amazing.

Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE
The major/minor system was developed three hundred years ago. It took the place of the old modal system. With the use of chromatics, temperance of the harmonic minor has made classical music less modal as well. Alot of classical music sounds the same too. I suggest you listen to rapp, and be thankful for the music system you have been given. If you are a student I suggest you keep, asking questions, and take no prisoners!

I dont like rap, and I doubt it provides any benefits since it's all based on rhythm. I agree absolutely with the last line, but when it's comes to music in general. Just follow your ear, which means play what you wanna hear. All people have a inner ear, that's your gift and guidance. Always trust it, it has all the answers.

[griphon2]

How else can I explain this idea.
Hungarian mode:
C D Eb F#/Gb G Ab B C
An C Hm with a #4, which makes it sort of lydian or cultural.
Phrygian in a modern context is a true 8 note scale. Which quite frankly, is an overblown blues scale.

[noticingthemistake]

Also, there really is no theory behind Rock music. It's the ultimate rule breaker cause it has no rules.

[aiwass]

Take Blues, for instance: No other style of music allows you to modulate so freely between major and minor, and no other style of music lets you play a minor scale (blues scale) over a major progression.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Can anyone name the seven modes of the RAP music system?
I will name the first mode.

1)PIMP-OLYDIAN

[chris mood]

2)OLE DIRTY BASTORIAN

[aiwass]

3) Phricky-dicky-dygian

[SLY]

My suggested NON-musical mode system for RAP :


1) Iofu*konian

2) Dickonian

3) Phri-su*ky-gian

4) Lickian

5) Mixo-Sexo-Lickian

6) Aeo-motherfu*k-elian

7) Loc-bitch-ian

[Edited by SLY on 01-28-2003 at 05:16 PM]

[noticingthemistake]

LOL!!!

MEGA-SCARY Phrygian and Funk-Master Mixolydian,
Coming to you str8 out of South Central Aeolian.
Cruising the streetz in our gold capped Dorian Express,
Getting our mack on the backseat with Miss. Lydian.
Ionian aint gonna say nutin, cause all your homies
know we're insane in the Locrain. Peace.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Correction: mode V is MIX-HO-LYIAN.
maybe im a bad influence by starting this RAP mode study workshop....

[chris mood]

I Like That!!

[aiwass]

LOL. This is hella cool!

[noticingthemistake]

Heck yeah. :) LOL

The Modal names translated into hip-hop definition:

Mixolydian: A brand name for a fancy new turntable, developed by Sir Mix-O-Lot. Or his supposed birth name Sir Mixolydian.

Dorian: The pimpin'ness new ride on the scene today. Which is featured in all of Vin Deisels new movies.

Phrygian: One of the martial arts gods that inspired the Wu-Tang Clan.

Aeolian: Some tropical island paradise in Greece or sumthang where Puffy filmed his last video.

Ionian: A white mans interpetation of a rapper mumbling, "I know you".

Lydian: One of the Hot B*$^#es in my video, "You got it going on (do-la-la)".

And Last but not least:

Locrian: Bobby Brown's favorite drug. "Did ya'll say Cocaine".

This is fun! <bark> <bark>

P.S. If Jesus is black, I'm definitely going to hell for this one.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 01-29-2003 at 12:07 PM]

[griphon2]

Now, this rap/hippoop stuff is quite funny.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by griphon2
rap/hippoop

LOL. Hippoop. Thats good.

[griphon2]

More info of the Overtone series. Pythagorus was a neat dude, not only in Mathematics, but also in Physics.

http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/overtone.html

A brief, but reasonably coherent explaination of the Overtone series, relative to our discussion. The seventh partial is noticeably flat. From the root to a certain point, the partials are in tune with the root. The limitations of equal temperment cause all but the octaves to be slightly out of tune with tempered notes, sort of. This experiment can be easily done on guitar. Anything above the 5th partial is measureably cents (roughly 31 cents, depending on octave.) off. In traditional theory this dissonance is unacceptable, or for some, sacreligious. Much of traditional theory has been modified or manipulated to cover this problem. I am not at all against teaching traditional theory. It must be understood that American music is different. Theoriticians are finding many ways to make traditional theory work in American music. Most rock musicians don't notice the problem until they play with horn players.

[griphon2]

The Phrygian question.
The uniqueness of the scale is the first interval half step.
In E Phrygian the next interval is F. Thus, it's 4 note harmony is:
i7,IImaj7,III7,iv7,viihalfdim,VImaj7,vii7
adding the appropriate HM and MM or JMM scale tensions change the harmony. Adding the extra note (which is always the major third of the root) changes the harmony significantly. The traditional harmonic progression of a typical Spanish tune is not I, IV, V. It's i or I, II, III. The pull of the mode creates this sound. Any other variation becomes tonal center oriented (F#), not phrygian. Even though still sounding phrygian. How ambiguous.

[griphon2]

I profusely apologize for the rap/hippoop derision. I really didn't mean this error. It was simply a fingering gliche or a brain fart. I simply must apologize to all the rap/hippoops out there... Damn, it happened again.
rap/hippoops... Damn... There must be something to
"Perfect practise makes perfect." It's gotta' be a Freudian slip or just a Jungen. rap/hippoop.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-29-2003 at 01:48 PM]

[chris mood]

Most spanish music is not based of the I bII bIII progression, this is the famous chord progression from the flamenco tune Malaguena.
Most of Spanish/Flamenco harmony is based off the Dom7b9 resolving to the minor i.

[aiwass]

Not to mention chromatic bass melodies over constant chords.

[griphon2]

Or a maj I, I agree, I just perverted it a tad. Just giving another way to look at it. There are so many ways. Whatever, I hope, helps.

[Edited by griphon2 on 01-30-2003 at 10:57 AM]

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Yo mange, sup D, spreadin me hippoop with its warm brown soun, dung need no mewsico instument cuz canuhfodeit, gold teeth and glock and smit n wess'n coss too muts, dunneed no talent cuss da bitses cant tell da difrance, day jus like to tok and datz fine wit mee.........

Hippoop Raider nation bustin up da town, da BUC's pay da pipah with my glock n wesson round!@#$

[aiwass]

Word!

[griphon2]

That had to be hard to type!

[noticingthemistake]

No more Crystal or Malt Liquor (depending on how ghetto he is)for ol' John. He's tripping like a crazy dawg! Whack, I told you!

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Im back!
Have any of you really mastered playing this harmonic minor scale? What are good examples of guitar players that do have these harmonic minor modes down as far as soloing lead? For hard rock Im thinking Yngwie Malmsteen, although his technique is a little weak. Tony macalpine is great too. I just saw him play here in Seattle a few weeks ago. Frank gamboli?

[aiwass]

You mean Frank Gambale? He's more of a fusion player.

George Bellas does. But he sounds so boring...

Michael Romeo does it while sounding interesting. And his technique rules.

[griphon2]

Al Dimeola, a little too cliche for my taste.
Eric Johnson does tons of HM and MMs in various contexts.

[aiwass]

Eric Johnson strkes me as more of a Pentatonic guy...

[chris mood]

What is this Harmonic Minor thing anyway?

An can someone please tell me how to play a diminished 7th chord.

I think this thread has run its course, afterall it's kinda hard to top that Hip Poop thing! -LoL-

See ya guys.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Originally posted by aiwass
You mean Frank Gambale? He's more of a fusion player.

George Bellas does. But he sounds so boring...

Michael Romeo does it while sounding interesting. And his technique rules.

Thats the guy -Frank Gambale. Heard he was good, but didn't know what scales he used. Bellas has the worst tone I have ever heard, faster than light, and dumb as a rock. I will check out Michael Romeo, and see what he is about.
thanks for the info everyone.

[griphon2]

Eric Johnson modifies the pentatonics at will.
Gambale became well known with Chick Corea's Electrik Band.
Later, put out an album called "Thunder from Down Under."
He's an Aussie. I saw him live long ago. He's not typical. A
very good and technical player.

[noticingthemistake]

Originally posted by chris mood
An can someone please tell me how to play a diminished 7th chord.

Cdim7
E:-------
B:--4----
G:--2----
D:--4----
A:--3----
E:-------

It's just a diminished chord with a 7th added to it. The double flat on the seventh is there to keep the diminished quality of the chord. So if you started the Cdim7 chord with Eb or any other note, it would make a diminished chord.
If it wasn't double flattened, it would just be a minor chord (Eb to Bb is a perfect 5, you need a b5 for a diminished chord.)

When the 7th is only flattened once, the correct chord name is Cm7b5.

Cm7b5 - C Eb Gb Bb.

The intervals in between: m m M

Cdim7 - C Eb Gb Bbb

The intervals in between: m m m (complete diminished)

Another way to look at it is rearrange the chord by inversion(meaning starting on a note other than the root).

Take Cm7b5 in triad form(for simple chord analysis).
C Eb Gb - diminished
Eb Gb Bb - minor
Gb Bb C - diminished
Bb C Eb - no function (Bb5add2)

Now Take the Cdim7.
C Eb Gb - diminished
Eb Gb Bbb - diminished
Gb Bbb C - no function, but enharmonic F# A C is diminished.
Bbb C Eb - no function, but enharmonic A C Eb is also diminished.

Also, the function of the diminished seventh is the same as the function of the regular diminished. Naturally moving up a 1/2 step, so the Cdim7 would move to a Db7. Hope this helps.

[aiwass]

[i]Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE

Thats the guy -Frank Gambale. Heard he was good, but didn't know what scales he used. Bellas has the worst tone I have ever heard, faster than light, and dumb as a rock. I will check out Michael Romeo, and see what he is about.
thanks for the info everyone. [/B]

You might have heard of his band, Symphony X. Very good melodic prog mixed with sick chops.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

SYMPHONY X is great. I have an eight song cd with them on it. No song names. I agree, sounds great. Dream Theater/Yngwie tone. Don't get me wrong -Im not saying Dream Theater has a good guitar player. He just gets by.....lazy pothead. Maybe I would let him play backup for me. Great song writer though. one of my favorite bands for sure.

[Edited by JOHN JAUNESE on 02-01-2003 at 11:13 PM]

[zepp_rules]

Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE
SYMPHONY X is great. I have an eight song cd with them on it. No song names. I agree, sounds great. Dream Theater/Yngwie tone. Don't get me wrong -Im not saying Dream Theater has a good guitar player. He just gets by.....lazy pothead. Maybe I would let him play backup for me. Great song writer though. one of my favorite bands for sure.

[Edited by JOHN JAUNESE on 02-01-2003 at 11:13 PM]


not much of an opinion on petrucci eh?

[aiwass]

Ahem. I agree Michael Romeo normally plays more fancy stuff than John Petrucci, but Petrucci isn't only an amazing songwriter. Check out all of his solos on Fatal Tragedy, Under a Glass Moon, Home, and The Glass Prison.

If you can play all of these no problem, then that's cool, but I bet you have to practice some of them for a while...;)

Btw, although Romeo is an amazingly fast picker, and no doubt better than petrucci at legato stuff, i think Petrucci can pick faster. If you don't believe me, check out his solo duet with one of the choir singers on Dream Theater's DVD Live Scenes from New York.

Then again, I hate to compare these two players, since they are so different. Michael Romeo plays very softly, using lots of legato, sweeping, and economy picking. Also, his picking technique is very relaxed. Petrucci has a more "brutal" approach to his instrument, and does more flat-out alternate picking, picking very hard and very fast. To make a long story short, they sound very different.

[Christoph]

Originally posted by JOHN JAUNESE
Thats the guy -Frank Gambale. Heard he was good, but didn't know what scales he used.

Oh, he's good. He uses all the same scales, just arranged differently.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

not much of an opinion on petrucci eh? [/B][/QUOTE]

I said he had great song writing skills, and his group Dream Theater is maybe my favorite band. Do you want me to say he is a great lead guitar player too? ...................ok fine, he is a great lead guitarist. I just don't think he is one of the top guitarist out there. Very overrated player

[aiwass]

He's very fast when he wants to, but part from being tasteful, his solos aren't extremely advanced. Then again, they don't need to, cuz they kick ass anyway. His solo on The Spirit Carries on is one of the most tasteful solos I've ever heard.

[JOHN JAUNESE]

Everything PETRUCCI plays kicks serious boulah. I have no doubt he could play faster than he does in any Dream Theater song. I respect his restraint from indulging in a massive shred fest during the songs. He would ruin the style of his band if he tried to show off too much. I shouldn't compare him to the great shredders, because he is not trying to be one. It did piss me off when he went on that tour with Steve Via, and Eric Johnson. I was hoping they could have filled that slot with a virtuoso caliber player....then again are VIA, and JOHNSON all that much better than PETRUCCI? I was thinking they were better, but maybe Im wrong.

[TheDirt]

Well, I won't be putting any of those guys down, because Vai, Johnson, Satriani, Petrucci, and countless others are way better than I... however, just wait until I'm around 30... maybe then I can dish out some smack about them :)

[noticingthemistake]

I think when you look at who is a better guitarist, and you comparing guys like Vai, Petrucci, and those guys. It's impossible to really say who is better, if your trying to exclude your own personal opinion. The level these guys are at is about the same, they are all master guitarists. I think they have mastered what they have intended to do, and each with a different style. I personally like how Vai brings more to the table of creativity, and Petrucci on his amazing solo abilities. Neither favored over another, they're all pretty darn amazing. Maybe one day they'll all have a guitar face-off, but I doubt it! Although it would be nice to see. :)

[aiwass]

I know. Satriani, Vai and Petrucci all went on tour together just because they're all so different.

In terms of speed, I think Petrucci is more proficient than Satriani and Vai. However, you'll never see Petrucci try to execute crazy Vai legato licks, whammy bar acrobatics, or improvising with exotic scales like the Oriental scale, like Satriani does. Petrucci plays in a very modest, polite fashion, choosing melody over extravaganza 90% of the time.