Modes

[TJE]

Hello folks I'm going to jump in the discussion of modes.....where I probably have no business. I think the one reason that these questions keep coming up about modes is because of the way guitar teachers try to teach modes. Most students think if they simply play DEFGABCD over a song in the key of C they are going to get a dorian sound! Which is not true. Why do they think this way? I think because most teachers I've been around will show them a scale pattern....call it the dorian pattern and thus the confusion.

Just my .02

[mr. beaumont]

You've been around lousy teachers.

I assure you we don't all teach it that way.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You've been around lousy teachers.

HI Jeff...

I don't teach modes, or flatpicking. I also don't teach students to read, nor do I use TAB nor notation to teach with. And I don't take beginners…*

Does that make me a bad teacher?

I hope not...since I'm not full-time, I only advertise for intermediate to advanced fingerstyle students (and that is who I attract).

I use the narrower topic as a screening mechanism.

There are many teachers who don't feel obligated to teach a full system or explore every nook and cranny of theory. This doesn't make them bad teachers.

[mr. beaumont]

My response was to the post above mine. Bad teachers teach modes the way TJE commented on.

You teach a very specific style, and I imagine your approach works for what you do.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Huh?

Theory explains...not dictates.

And a good theory is a generative as well as an explanatory tool.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

And a good theory is a generative as well as an explanatory tool.

I still disagree it's explanatory (in the sense I understand the word), but I agree it's generative, to a certain extent.
You can certainly make adequate and correct music using theory alone, but I doubt you'll make much good music...

Theory doesn't "explain" music any more (or any less!) than English grammar "explains" English. It simply describes, by identifying patterns and common practices in whatever music is being studied.
And of course that knowledge then enables you to emulate those patterns and practices to generate new music. But music generated solely that way tends to sound like academic exercises. Not necessarily unattractive, because the sounds will be familiar.
Then again, I doubt anyone in their right minds ever makes music solely from theoretical rules... We can't help but use our aural judgement and taste to control the results, which is as it should be.

[mr. beaumont]

Well, to explain anything you have to do some description right?

Maybe a bad choice of words on my part...but we're running the risk of getting a little pedantic here, dontcha think?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Well, to explain anything you have to do some description right?

Sure. But describing something is a lot easier than explaining it.
Then again, "explaining" has many levels...

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Maybe a bad choice of words on my part...but we're running the risk of getting a little pedantic here, dontcha think?

"risk"? "a little"?
I'm in full-on pedantic mode here .

[d18]

Originally Posted by 815C

I wrote a fairly comprehensive book on scales, modes, and arpeggios that was used for awhile at Berklee School of Music. Jamey Aebersold selected it to be included in his catalog of jazz resources as well.

Here is a video describing the book and demonstrating what it teaches, along with a PDF preview. The material in the free PDF should give you a good start.

http://www.masterguitarists.com/videodet.php?vid=12

Thx

Hi David,

Your book looks very interesting. Is it on Amazon? I can't find it there. Also, did you ever get to make up that DVD you mentioned at the end of your video?

Thanks,
Robert

[d18]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Much of the above is dealing with "modes" as different patterns of a major scale, as a kind of technical cousin of scales and arpeggios, with special reference to the guitar fretboard. (815C's PDF is of this kind, and philjs's recommendation looks to be similar.)...

So are Modes, Scales and Arpeggios the only cousins in the family? Or, from 30,000 feet, are there other cousins, if so, what are they?

-- Robert

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I still disagree it's explanatory (in the sense I understand the word), but I agree it's generative, to a certain extent.
You can certainly make adequate and correct music using theory alone, but I doubt you'll make much good music...

Theory doesn't "explain" music any more (or any less!) than English grammar "explains" English. It simply describes, by identifying patterns and common practices in whatever music is being studied.
And of course that knowledge then enables you to emulate those patterns and practices to generate new music. But music generated solely that way tends to sound like academic exercises. Not necessarily unattractive, because the sounds will be familiar.
Then again, I doubt anyone in their right minds ever makes music solely from theoretical rules... We can't help but use our aural judgement and taste to control the results, which is as it should be.

An encylopaedic compilation of every piece of Western music ever composed, or even just those deemed by some committee to be "good" would, perhaps along with a detailed mechanical description of all the instruments used and player techniques on them, be a very good description of what is done in Western music. But it would not be a theory of music; not even a poor one. Theory abstracts from the merely descriptive some unifying principles and patterns, or even rules. It organizes them in such a way that they are internally consistent, and consistent with other bodies of theory (for example, physical theory as it pertains to acoustics). It goes further by drawing on (in our example of music theory) those other theories to show why compositional and instrumental practices that follow the observed patterns would tend to work (consonance, dissonance, beats, etc.). It would then perhaps go even further and relate in a consistent way something about the physiology of hearing and the psychology of pleasurable responses to sensory stimulation, and tie these in to what has worked in the music.

That, my friend, is what we call explanation. If that is done well, then it would have success in predicting that some pieces music not yet composed and played would be more successful than some other ones, or even in creating new pieces of fair quality (say by programming a computer).

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

An encylopaedic compilation of every piece of Western music ever composed, or even just those deemed by some committee to be "good" would, perhaps along with a detailed mechanical description of all the instruments used and player techniques on them, be a very good description of what is done in Western music. But it would not be a theory of music; not even a poor one. Theory abstracts from the merely descriptive some unifying principles and patterns, or even rules. It organizes them in such a way that they are internally consistent, and consistent with other bodies of theory (for example, physical theory as it pertains to acoustics).

Agreed.
I meant it describes common practices. It doesn't seek to explain why things work, only describes how they do.
IMO, describing how something works is not the same as explaining it. Or, at least, it's a partial explanation at best.

In the grammar analogy, it's like describing the rules of a language, the way people put words together, word order, tenses, endings, etc.
Grammar doesn't attempt to explain why people talk that way; that's just how the language evolved. (Still less is it interested in the ideas people are trying to express through the language; why they might choose certain words and not others of similar meaning.) What matters is to identify the underlying patterns and formulas, to help those learning the language.
As such, it goes hand in hand with listening, which is necessary to get the right accents and emphases.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

It goes further by drawing on (in our example of music theory) those other theories to show why compositional and instrumental practices that follow the observed patterns would tend to work (consonance, dissonance, beats, etc.).

Music theory has little or nothing to say about consonance and dissonance. That's the province of acoustic science, psycho-acoustics, aural perception. Music theory is not scientific. It's about cultural practices and habits. It talks about what musicians do; not why they do it.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

It would then perhaps go even further and relate in a consistent way something about the physiology of hearing and the psychology of pleasurable responses to sensory stimulation, and tie these in to what has worked in the music.

But that's nothing to do with "music theory", as we normally understand it.
It would belong in a general (scientific) "theory of music", but that's not what this is about.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

That, my friend, is what we call explanation.

True. And well beyond what "music theory" attempts to do!

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

If that is done well, then it would have success in predicting that some pieces music not yet composed and played would be more successful than some other ones, or even in creating new pieces of fair quality (say by programming a computer).

Quite possibly.
IOW, in order to do that, you need a lot more information than that provided by music theory. You need information from those various sciences.

[Howard Klepper]

Jon: I disagree that those lines can be clearly drawn, and it's not my experience with many books that purport to be about music theory.

But you are right that my view of music theory is colored by my thinking that it is like a theory in science.

We probably have taken this sidelight to modes as far as it can go, at least on this thread. I appreciate your perspective and am thinking about it.

[d18]

..........

[d18]

Very nice second video! However, the first one is marked private so I couldn't watch it.

Originally Posted by kerbie

These are videos instead of books, but they may also be helpful to you. These are by Doug Young and Eric Skye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO3brWbfzgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU9ygo81vOc