Can modes make you more creative?

horse

I've been trying to think about modes again, as I do every few years with little success!

If there's a chord progression of say:

Em, G, Am, C, D

In my head the notes constituting those chords all fit with the scale of G major, so I can use those notes.

Can thinking about modes help me to think about what notes outside of G major I might also consider (rather than using experimentation / instinct as I might do at the moment)?

On a slightly different (ahem) note:

If the chord progression then changed to:

A7, C, A7, C

Then I need to adjust the scale I'm using over the A7 - I'm not at an instrument but presume to D major maybe due to the C# note in the A7 chord (eg stay in G major but just shift the C up to a C# temporarily if over the A7)? Do modes help here, or is it just the case that the A7 mixes things up in a way that the mode theory doesn't expect?

Apologies in advance for what are probably daft questions!

Cranky

**edited** I misplayed the "relative" theme slightly . . . 

I am not good enough at theory to explain too well nor to improvise on the fly, but I am kinda obsessed with it and maybe can shed some perspective.

(btw, A is Amaj, a is Amin, etc.)

Understanding and then "memorizing" the notes implicated by the mode is, for me, best done by way of understanding relatives.  For example, it seems to come rather easy to us that every major key has it's relative minor key.  And the relative minor (i.e. aeolian mode) of any major is the sixth of that major.  Exact same scale, but different starting point or "tonal center".  Well, the same applies to the chords of those relative keys.  Cmaj goes to d, e, F, G, a, b dim.  The key of Amin has these very same chords, the only difference being that what was the vi and vii chords (Amin and Bdim) in Cmaj is now the i and ii in Amin.  By that same token, your Em/G/Am/C/D could just as well be from the key of Em rather than Gmaj.  It's kinda up to you and what you decide your "mood" and "tonal center" will be.

So here's what's made the other modes easier for me to grasp.  Just as every major key has it's relative minor (aeolian) key, it also has it's relative dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, and locrian key.  Just as the aeolian is the sixth mode, it begins on the sixth of it's relative major.  (e.g. E is the sixth of G, therefore Em is the relative minor of Gmaj.)  So if you want to play the fifth mode -- mixolydian -- you'll want to know what  your tonic is the fifth of.  In your case, you've picked G major, which is the fifth of Cmaj.  So you build your chord progressions from there: G, a, b dim, C, D, e, f#..  And you'll solo in Cmaj, but paying special attention to a tonal center of G.  So on and so forth.

Another thing to consider when trying to make a more educated guess about what to play outside of your key is stuff like "secondary dominants" and "borrowed chords", which is a different way of picking out a chord progression beyond my explanatory capabilities.  YT has plenty to offer here.

I'm not sure what to make of your A7 example.  If it's all the same song you're talking about, it looks like a borrowed chord.  A7 in this case is the V of V, in other words a secondary dominant.

I hope this helps and that I didn't give any wrong information.  Somebody will set me straight, I'm sure.  Sometimes you gotta be wrong before you're right.

TheBigDipper

a

horse

Cranky said:

I am not good enough at theory to explain too well nor to improvise on the fly, but I am kinda obsessed with it and maybe can shed some perspective.

(btw, A is Amaj, a is Amin, etc.)

Understanding and then "memorizing" the notes implicated by the mode is, for me, best done by way of understanding relatives.  For example, it seems to come rather easy to us that every major key has it's relative minor key.  And the relative minor (i.e. aeolian mode) of any major is the sixth of that major.  Exact same scale, but different starting point or "tonal center".  Well, the same applies to the chords of those relative keys.  Cmaj goes to d, e, F, G, a, b dim.  The key of Amin has these very same chords, the only difference being that what was the vi and vii chords (Amin and Bdim) in Cmaj is now the i and ii in Amin.  By that same token, your Em/G/Am/C/D could just as well be from the key of Em rather than Gmaj.  It's kinda up to you and what you decide your "mood" and "tonal center" will be.

So here's what's made the other modes easier for me to grasp.  Just as every major key has it's relative minor (aeolian) key, it also has it's relative dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, and locrian key.  Just as the aeolian is the sixth mode, it begins on the sixth of it's relative major.  (e.g. E is the sixth of G, therefore Em is the relative minor of Gmaj.)  So if you want to play the fifth mode -- mixolydian -- you'll want to find the fifth of the major tonic.  In your case, you've picked G major, and the fifth of G is Dmaj.  So you build your chord progressions from there: D, e, f#, G, A, b, c# dim.  And you'll solo in Dmaj, but paying special attention to a tonal center of G.  If you're in G lydian (i.e. the fourth major mode), you've got to defer to the fourth of Gmaj, which is Cmaj: C, d, e, F, G, a, b dim.  And you'll solo in Cmaj but paying special attention to a tonal center of G.  So on and so forth.

Another thing to consider when trying to make a more educated guess about what to play outside of your key is stuff like "secondary dominants" and "borrowed chords", which is a different way of picking out a chord progression beyond my explanatory capabilities.  YT has plenty to offer here.

I'm not sure what to make of your A7 example.  If it's all the same song you're talking about, it looks like a borrowed chord.  A7 in this case is the V of V, in other words a secondary dominant.

I hope this helps and that I didn't give any wrong information.  Somebody will set me straight, I'm sure.  Sometimes you gotta be wrong before you're right.

 I can kind of follow your explanation of relatives, but it feels like this way of thinking is more relevant to composition than improvising over an existing progression - to my muddled mind anyway!

I was thinking about the Beatles And I Love Her, and can hear the distinctive mode used particularly in the first line of the melody, but it feels to me a function of the chord progression rather than a modal choice over the progression? Chicken and egg in terms of composition maybe.

horse

Secondary dominant definitely fills in some gaps thank you, although when it comes to soloing over them the guide seems to be "see which notes sound right / don't clash", which is what I'd try to do anyway!

Cranky

horse said:

 I can kind of follow your explanation of relatives, but it feels like this way of thinking is more relevant to composition than improvising over an existing progression - to my muddled mind anyway!

I was thinking about the Beatles And I Love Her, and can hear the distinctive mode used particularly in the first line of the melody, but it feels to me a function of the chord progression rather than a modal choice over the progression? Chicken and egg in terms of composition maybe.

It just means that, if you're improvising in, say, G Mixolydian, you should improvise using the C major scale.  If it's G Aeolian, we just call it "E minor" and you improvise along an E minor scale.  But in either case, you just want to know where the G note is on each string so that you can emphasize that note as you move toward and away from it.  (I might be wording this wrong, but the gist is the same.)

With the secondary dominant, you just need to know what note(s) that chord introduces to the song that would otherwise be considered "out of key."  The A7 includes A,C#,E and G, so it's the C# you have to watch out for when soloing because normally in the key of Gmaj/Emin the C would be natural rather than sharp.  It all makes for a nice change-of-pace section of the song.

digitalkettle

horse said:

Can thinking about modes help me to think about what notes outside of G major I might also consider (rather than using experimentation / instinct as I might do at the moment)?

Thinking about modes can open your ear up to the different flavours they present. So it would be useful to spend some time playing various modes over a drone...usual stuff: be conscious of the intervals you're playing, play along a single string, etc.

However, it sounds like you're looking for a secret weapon to make your music more interesting. I read your OP as 'I've got a bunch of chords in G major and I'm tired of playing a vanilla G major scale over them'...but that's where the money is (don't be messing about with stuff you can't whistle ).

What will make a difference is this: always be thinking of the chords! The G major scale gives you a safety net but not all notes will sound strong unless they're applied with thought/feeling (you don't really calculate this stuff on the fly). The chords and what you play over them are part of a dynamic harmonic context...they're two sides of the same coin. Don't relegate the chords to merely providing a backing track.

So your first progression was [Em, G, Am, C, D]. Targeting basic chord tones (root, third, fifth) gives:

• Em - E G B
• G - G B D
• Am - A C E
• C - C E G
• D - D F# A

Going beyond this, you can embellish the chords with more harmonic information...think of them as seventh chords [Em7, Gmaj7, Am7, Cmaj7, D7] which gives:

• Em7 - E G B D
• Gmaj7 - G B D F#
• Am7 - A C E G
• Cmaj7 - C E G B
• D7 - D F# A C

Or you could add ninths, elevenths, thirteenths, etc. This all sounds a bit 'jazz chords 101' but it's just a system for exploring what harmonic depth might be hiding behind your vanilla G major chord progression. This is all diatonic...we're not even substituting chords. Here's one I prepared earlier which doesn't smell like jazz: Emadd9, Gmaj7, Am11, Cmaj7#11, D7sus4

Roland

horse said:

I've been trying to think about modes again, as I do every few years with little success! ...

... Can thinking about modes help me to think about what notes outside of G major I might also consider (rather than using experimentation / instinct as I might do at the moment)?

Modes can give you note choices outside of the G major scale. So too will looking at the notes which aren’t common throughout the chords. I submit that focusing on chord tones is more likely to prompt creativity than modal scales, particularly if you look for melodic ideas which cross chord changes.

In your A7 C example: A7 gives you a c# e g. C gives c e g b. So there will be interesting melodic ideas which focus on the chromatic sequence: b c c#. If you then add in the scale notes A7 adds d f#, and C adds d f g. In fact you’ve got everything apart from a# d# f#. You probably want to avoid these three. The other notes are fair game. You can create real interest by aligning semitones changes with chord changes. 

Modes can give the same answers by a different thinking process.

horse

digitalkettle said:

However, it sounds like you're looking for a secret weapon to make your music more interesting. I read your OP as 'I've got a bunch of chords in G major and I'm tired of playing a vanilla G major scale over them'...but that's where the money is (don't be messing about with stuff you can't whistle ).

 You got me!

TBH chord relationships, and in particular how altering bass notes under them sounds is pretty well ingrained in my brain - I can imagine the sound of a C bass note with a Bb major chord over it for example in my head, and how it sounds if I shift both up a tone etc.

I can find the safe major scale to noodle in over a simple progression, know the blue notes to try, can "think" the notes which constitute the chords in my head at the same time no problem.

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

So maybe I have been imagining that the modes held a secret I didn't know, or maybe I just still don't get it!

horse

Roland said:

Modes can give the same answers by a different thinking process.

 I think this is maybe the conclusion I'm coming to, but not sure if they can help me in a jam any more than what I already rely on.

Cranky

Also, go to YT and punch in "Beato chords".  He's a wealth of information.  Even if you don't get it at first, persevere for a while and let it sink in as you keep practicing.

digitalkettle

horse said:

digitalkettle said:

However, it sounds like you're looking for a secret weapon to make your music more interesting. I read your OP as 'I've got a bunch of chords in G major and I'm tired of playing a vanilla G major scale over them'...but that's where the money is (don't be messing about with stuff you can't whistle ).

  I can find the safe major scale to noodle in over a simple progression, know the blue notes to try, can "think" the notes which constitute the chords in my head at the same time no problem.
<snip>
So maybe I have been imagining that the modes held a secret I didn't know, or maybe I just still don't get it!

If your progression changed to [Em G A Bm D], what would you play? (it's not a trick )

digitalkettle

horse said:

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

Very broadly speaking, with YJM, anything that sounds different to the natural major scale (and its modes) will probably be either the harmonic minor scale (and its fifth mode phrygian dominant) or diminished (quite often arpeggios, sometimes scalar).

Yes, the scale/arp/note choices are driven by the neo-classical chord progressions...stuff with diminished chords...V7 -> i resolutions, etc. That is what I'm getting at in a general sense with the 'two sides of the same coin' thing.

horse

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

digitalkettle said:

However, it sounds like you're looking for a secret weapon to make your music more interesting. I read your OP as 'I've got a bunch of chords in G major and I'm tired of playing a vanilla G major scale over them'...but that's where the money is (don't be messing about with stuff you can't whistle ).

  I can find the safe major scale to noodle in over a simple progression, know the blue notes to try, can "think" the notes which constitute the chords in my head at the same time no problem.
<snip>
So maybe I have been imagining that the modes held a secret I didn't know, or maybe I just still don't get it!

If your progression changed to [Em G A Bm D], what would you play? (it's not a trick )

 Well you've got an F# and a C# in the chords, so I'm guessing I could noodle around with the notes from D major, but obviously I wouldn't just play the D major scale starting on D?  (Not checked this out - just what seems to make sense after some beer)

viz

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

Very broadly speaking, with YJM, anything that sounds different to the natural major scale (and its modes) will probably be either the harmonic minor scale (and its fifth mode phrygian dominant) or diminished (quite often arpeggios, sometimes scalar).

Yes, the scale/arp/note choices are driven by the neo-classical chord progressions...stuff with diminished chords...V7 -> i resolutions, etc. That is what I'm getting at in a general sense with the 'two sides of the same coin' thing.

I was going to say the same. 99% of yngwie is minor, and he lays on the dominant chord very thickly - ie he harbours on the phrygian dominant. In fact he hardly ever (actually I think it is actually never) plays the harmonic minor over the tonic - he plays aeolian. But he spends at least 50% of his widdle-time on the V chord, which he majorises, thus playing the phrygian dominant scale. 

horse

viz said:

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

Very broadly speaking, with YJM, anything that sounds different to the natural major scale (and its modes) will probably be either the harmonic minor scale (and its fifth mode phrygian dominant) or diminished (quite often arpeggios, sometimes scalar).

Yes, the scale/arp/note choices are driven by the neo-classical chord progressions...stuff with diminished chords...V7 -> i resolutions, etc. That is what I'm getting at in a general sense with the 'two sides of the same coin' thing.

I was going to say the same. 99% of yngwie is minor, and he lays on the dominant chord very thickly - ie he harbours on the phrygian dominant. In fact he hardly ever (actually I think it is actually never) plays the harmonic minor over the tonic - he plays aeolian. But he spends at least 50% of his widdle-time on the V chord, which he majorises, thus playing the phrygian dominant scale. 

 That's over my head, but in your view are his lead note choices intrinsic to the chord progressions he has chosen, or are they one choice from a number of potential choices that could work over those progressions?

viz

horse said:

viz said:

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

Very broadly speaking, with YJM, anything that sounds different to the natural major scale (and its modes) will probably be either the harmonic minor scale (and its fifth mode phrygian dominant) or diminished (quite often arpeggios, sometimes scalar).

Yes, the scale/arp/note choices are driven by the neo-classical chord progressions...stuff with diminished chords...V7 -> i resolutions, etc. That is what I'm getting at in a general sense with the 'two sides of the same coin' thing.

I was going to say the same. 99% of yngwie is minor, and he lays on the dominant chord very thickly - ie he harbours on the phrygian dominant. In fact he hardly ever (actually I think it is actually never) plays the harmonic minor over the tonic - he plays aeolian. But he spends at least 50% of his widdle-time on the V chord, which he majorises, thus playing the phrygian dominant scale. 

 That's over my head, but in your view are his lead note choices intrinsic to the chord progressions he has chosen, or are they one choice from a number of potential choices that could work over those progressions?

The former.

1) He plays minor pieces
2) he prefers a major V chord (like Vivaldi, Bach etc)
3) He loves lingering on the V chord. He can’t get enough of it
4) Apart from the majorised V, he never deviates from the notes in the key (apart from the odd blue note in his take on da blooz)


Therefore he automatically plays phrygian dominant scales incessantly - it’s unavoidable if you follow 1-4 above. And we love him for it. Amusingly he even calls it phrygian. 

The other thing he loves is diminished arpeggii, which, happily for him, also sit within the phrygian dominant scale - by missing out the 1, 4 and 6 (and 8) of the phrygian dominant scale you get the diminished arp. 

Cranky

I don't know anything about Malmsteen other than that he's crazy fast.

To answer the original question, I think that modes can help you be creative, but not necessarily in the spirit of "improvising a solo on the fly."  Knowing modes and "borrowed chords" will help you either create your own tune -- both in terms of chord progression and melodic lead play (or amelodic lead play for tension).  And knowing modes will help you break down someone else's tune.  But once you have a mode, you usually stick with it.  Or if you have a sort of modal mixture, you still "mix" in accordance with the chord progression.

digitalkettle

horse said:

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

digitalkettle said:

However, it sounds like you're looking for a secret weapon to make your music more interesting. I read your OP as 'I've got a bunch of chords in G major and I'm tired of playing a vanilla G major scale over them'...but that's where the money is (don't be messing about with stuff you can't whistle ).

  I can find the safe major scale to noodle in over a simple progression, know the blue notes to try, can "think" the notes which constitute the chords in my head at the same time no problem.
<snip>
So maybe I have been imagining that the modes held a secret I didn't know, or maybe I just still don't get it!

If your progression changed to [Em G A Bm D], what would you play? (it's not a trick )

 Well you've got an F# and a C# in the chords, so I'm guessing I could noodle around with the notes from D major, but obviously I wouldn't just play the D major scale starting on D?  (Not checked this out - just what seems to make sense after some beer)

Yep...the beer's working...so the home chord is still Em but the new chords are telling you that you're in the key of D major...so you'd be using the second mode of D major: 'E Dorian'...and it goes without saying that the progression is also Dorian.

When you're noodling, you'll be targeting chord tones as per usual and you may want to embellish the chords as I outlined before...only drawing from the D major scale. Sometimes the chords might provide the extra harmonic information explicitly, sometimes you might imply it by what you play over them, sometimes it stays vanilla.

At least, that's how I think of it...and it becomes lots of chord fragments connected by safe notes and 'licks' when you're improvising. Practice lets you internalise these ideas so you don't have to overthink in the moment.

horse

viz said:

horse said:

viz said:

digitalkettle said:

horse said:

I think because I used to hear for example about the modes Malmsteen was using, I thought he was making a conscious decision to pick particular scales which then sounded a certain way. But maybe in fact it is the chords he chose when composing which implied those particular scales / arpeggios - 2 sides of the same coin if I understand what you are getting at?

Very broadly speaking, with YJM, anything that sounds different to the natural major scale (and its modes) will probably be either the harmonic minor scale (and its fifth mode phrygian dominant) or diminished (quite often arpeggios, sometimes scalar).

Yes, the scale/arp/note choices are driven by the neo-classical chord progressions...stuff with diminished chords...V7 -> i resolutions, etc. That is what I'm getting at in a general sense with the 'two sides of the same coin' thing.

I was going to say the same. 99% of yngwie is minor, and he lays on the dominant chord very thickly - ie he harbours on the phrygian dominant. In fact he hardly ever (actually I think it is actually never) plays the harmonic minor over the tonic - he plays aeolian. But he spends at least 50% of his widdle-time on the V chord, which he majorises, thus playing the phrygian dominant scale. 

 That's over my head, but in your view are his lead note choices intrinsic to the chord progressions he has chosen, or are they one choice from a number of potential choices that could work over those progressions?

The former.

1) He plays minor pieces
2) he prefers a major V chord (like Vivaldi, Bach etc)
3) He loves lingering on the V chord. He can’t get enough of it
4) Apart from the majorised V, he never deviates from the notes in the key (apart from the odd blue note in his take on da blooz)


Therefore he automatically plays phrygian dominant scales incessantly - it’s unavoidable if you follow 1-4 above. And we love him for it. Amusingly he even calls it phrygian. 

The other thing he loves is diminished arpeggii, which, happily for him, also sit within the phrygian dominant scale - by missing out the 1, 4 and 6 (and 8) of the phrygian dominant scale you get the diminished arp. 

 That's really helpful thank you Viz. So I guess he can only use that diminished arp over the major V chord?

What would be the most exaggerated example you can think of where he lingers on the major V?

horse

Thanks everyone - I think this has helped to clear up some incorrect assumptions on my part.

One useful aspect is that up until now I would often have relied on my ear to know whether to play the note a whole tone or semi tone below the tonic (if that's the right term?). Sometimes I'd get that wrong, but being more aware of the modes can help me be more confident in that type of decision when improvising.