The difference between a Key and a Mode

stickyfiddle

MatthewShreddery said:

I don't think the answer in the OP was too bad.

Modes are just scales. They each have their own unique colour and mood. 

Really, modes could just be called moods (to quote Frank Gambale from a recent clinic of his).

Key just tells you which note is tonic, and usually implies a tonal centre.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people trying to learn things from a theoretical perspective, before they have even learnt what the scales sound like.

A bit like trying to learn a language by reading a dictionary.

I'm not entirely sure what the full question actually is. 

Are you asking with regards to how you'd notate a key/mode, and any differences thenceforth? 

Or are you asking more from an aural perspective; what are the differences in the way they sound?

I really don't think there is a difference between a key and a mode. It's all just sound, and as most of us play music by ear I'd sooner be able to hear the tonal implications of a set of chords or even a static one-chord-vamp rather than be able to tell you how many flats/sharps are in the key signature (though knowing that stuff helps too).

I stand by my simple philosophy - keys are either major or minor. Regardless of modes and all that stuff. For most musical scenarios I've ever encountered this has been the case.

If I was playing a D Lydian vamp I would notate the music in the key of D major.

This key has 2 #'s.

The frequent recurrence of G#'s - the #4 -  in the music would be an indication that this is a modal piece of music.

Is there really a need to indicate to the performer that a piece is in such-and-such a 'mode'? 

Isn't that a little bit like musical mollycoddling? 

It's like people want to feel safe - 'here's a box of notes, they'll all work over these chords...'

We're in C - if you can't hear that the II chord has an F# in it (Lydian jam anyone?) then you've got some more practice to do.

(EDIT - I pulled the key of C from thin air - not related to my previous paragraph talking about D Lydian)

Haven't read the whole thread but I'm fairly certain the red bit sums up eveyrthing I've ever felt about discussing modes. Exactly this. I'm one of the lucky ones who "did" music from 7 or 8, and can play pretty much anything I want to by ear (my fingers fail at widdly stuff far earlier than my ears do). A lot of guitarists aren't like this though- they play finger patterns that they know work in certain circumstances, but to know what will work, they need to know the circumstances in order to work out what patterns will work, not just use their ears.

In other words, I agree with Kone, I think.

Clarky

stickyfiddle said:

MatthewShreddery said:

I don't think the answer in the OP was too bad.

Modes are just scales. They each have their own unique colour and mood. 

Really, modes could just be called moods (to quote Frank Gambale from a recent clinic of his).

Key just tells you which note is tonic, and usually implies a tonal centre.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people trying to learn things from a theoretical perspective, before they have even learnt what the scales sound like.

A bit like trying to learn a language by reading a dictionary.

I'm not entirely sure what the full question actually is. 

Are you asking with regards to how you'd notate a key/mode, and any differences thenceforth? 

Or are you asking more from an aural perspective; what are the differences in the way they sound?

I really don't think there is a difference between a key and a mode. It's all just sound, and as most of us play music by ear I'd sooner be able to hear the tonal implications of a set of chords or even a static one-chord-vamp rather than be able to tell you how many flats/sharps are in the key signature (though knowing that stuff helps too).

I stand by my simple philosophy - keys are either major or minor. Regardless of modes and all that stuff. For most musical scenarios I've ever encountered this has been the case.

If I was playing a D Lydian vamp I would notate the music in the key of D major.

This key has 2 #'s.

The frequent recurrence of G#'s - the #4 -  in the music would be an indication that this is a modal piece of music.

Is there really a need to indicate to the performer that a piece is in such-and-such a 'mode'? 

Isn't that a little bit like musical mollycoddling? 

It's like people want to feel safe - 'here's a box of notes, they'll all work over these chords...'

We're in C - if you can't hear that the II chord has an F# in it (Lydian jam anyone?) then you've got some more practice to do.

(EDIT - I pulled the key of C from thin air - not related to my previous paragraph talking about D Lydian)

Haven't read the whole thread but I'm fairly certain the red bit sums up eveyrthing I've ever felt about discussing modes. Exactly this. I'm one of the lucky ones who "did" music from 7 or 8, and can play pretty much anything I want to by ear (my fingers fail at widdly stuff far earlier than my ears do). A lot of guitarists aren't like this though- they play finger patterns that they know work in certain circumstances, but to know what will work, they need to know the circumstances in order to work out what patterns will work, not just use their ears.

In other words, I agree with Kone, I think.

I think the prob with all this theory stuff is that the reason for it's existence is often overlooked..

music theory is simply a means to give folk the language to describe what they hear / to communicate with other musicians..

occasionally it can be a compositional aid, as in "what possibilities are open to me over this chord / progression"..

too often though, I see many guitarists getting confined within a set of rules... like sticking your creativity in a cage.. using theory as a means to write seems to me like the tail wagging the dog... your intuition and experience should choose the notes.. the theory simply enables you to talk about them after should you need to...

carlos

frankus said:

It sounds pretentious at a gig, anally retentive in a studio BUT fucking awesome on internet forums for guitarists (try it with musicians and you'll be out of your depth almost instantly).

Yeah, you wouldn't discuss it at a gig, but the rest is just your experience. I've certainly been in the studio and discussing theory, except in that moment it's not theory but rather actual useful way to communicate musical choices. Say your bandleader asks you to solo over a minor section with a more mellow feel? It's nice to know that you can raise your 6's (go from Aeolian to Dorian) for an instant more mellow sound. Some people might even ask what you just played so they can follow that and then it's useful to have common terms to explain.

And I know plenty of musicians from other instruments who know fuck all of theory. They can instantly sight read, both pitches and rhythm, but they'd have no idea what notes go with what chords as they never studied that. Just don't mess with keys players, their harmonic knowledge will mess you up.

frankus

georgenadaintl said:

frankus said:

It sounds pretentious at a gig, anally retentive in a studio BUT fucking awesome on internet forums for guitarists (try it with musicians and you'll be out of your depth almost instantly).

Yeah, you wouldn't discuss it at a gig, but the rest is just your experience. I've certainly been in the studio and discussing theory, except in that moment it's not theory but rather actual useful way to communicate musical choices. Say your bandleader asks you to solo over a minor section with a more mellow feel? It's nice to know that you can raise your 6's (go from Aeolian to Dorian) for an instant more mellow sound. Some people might even ask what you just played so they can follow that and then it's useful to have common terms to explain.

I remember having lunch with Justin Sandercoe, Jason Sidwell and Eric Roche (so that dates it somewhat) and the discussion got around to session work. The winner for all round vagueness from a producer seem to be "I'd like the solo to be like a kind of three am sleeze" ... and after the take "that was 2 am" ...

 

And I know plenty of musicians from other instruments who know fuck all of theory. They can instantly sight read, both pitches and rhythm, but they'd have no idea what notes go with what chords as they never studied that. Just don't mess with keys players, their harmonic knowledge will mess you up.

One of my friends is a keys player and a sound engineer by trade, when I say stuff about modes I get an "aw bless" look from him .. a bit like you'd get if you heard the keepers had given chimpanzees hand guns at a safari park.

 

I think guitarists could be like other musicians or we could carry on bothering ourselves with important sounding stuff that frankly we probably don't use.

 

MatthewShreddery

I don't know many good improvisers who haven't spent a lot of time learning scales, so I don't know why someone would give you funny looks for mentioning modes - after all they are just scales too.

 

It's not cool to not know theory. It's not uncool to not know it either. It all depends on what your goals are, what your musical intentions are etc. 

It's totally cool to only use 5 notes in your solos, but some people want to explore other sounds. 

The only way to get these sounds into your ears and into your fingers is to practice them by way of scale/chord study and by transcribing music. 

We guitarists do tend to mystify modes, like they're some sort of black magic voodoo shit. The classical background to modes is some heavy reading and quite hard to digest. However, most of us use modal theory in 2 basic ways: to play in 'a mode' (Miles Davis, Joe satriani), and to play over chord changes (play Dorian over chord ii, altered scale which is melodic minor up a half step, over chord V) etc.

Simple really.

koneguitarist

The point I was making, that when I was growing up and playing in bands, we all just wanted to be able to play in Key and in time. If it sounds right it's right, if it sounds wrong it's wrong.

Never heard of modes and stuff till the 90's after all these guitarists started popping out of Berkley, all sounding the same, and all featured in Mike Varneys column in Guitar player. 

I get it why some want to learn more, and why some could not care less about soloing in some Phrygid mode! 

It's music not an exam, do you think Peter Green thought if I use a mixythingy here it will make it sound better, or do you think he heard the notes in his head and expressed them?  

koneguitarist

More to the point, do you think if he knew more scales he would have put a better choice of notes in, yet may have lost the whole point of solo!

MatthewShreddery

I agree with you @koneguitarist - not sure if you were directing your post at me or not..?

I might add however, that regardless of how naturally talented a musician may be, there will be sounds he cannot imagine until he has heard them.

You only really hear things in your head when you listen to music that has those sounds. If you only listen to blues (blues-blues, not jazz) then you may only hear certain sounds limited to those commonly played in that genre, as opposed to guys who listen to lots of bebop.

Clarky

MatthewShreddery said:

I might add however, that regardless of how naturally talented a musician may be, there will be sounds he cannot imagine until he has heard them.

You only really hear things in your head when you listen to music that has those sounds. If you only listen to blues (blues-blues, not jazz) then you may only hear certain sounds limited to those commonly played in that genre, as opposed to guys who listen to lots of bebop.

this goes back to your point about transcribing / learning the solos of others…

learn by example

MatthewShreddery

Yes, which in turn goes back to my earlier points about learning theory before sounds. I think you're better off learning what things sound like before analysing what they are on paper. Certainly at the beginner stages at least.

carlos

All the jazz fusion guys knew all about this stuff way before the 90s. The Mike Sterns, Scofields, McLaughlins and so on. And then of course the bebop guys like Charlie Christian who maybe didn't think of Greek named modes but definitely knew all his theory.

Clarky

MatthewShreddery said:

Yes, which in turn goes back to my earlier points about learning theory before sounds. I think you're better off learning what things sound like before analysing what they are on paper. Certainly at the beginner stages at least.

funny you mention that… cos I teach my students via repertoire..

my take is..

choose songs / pieces that contain something that helps develop a specific area a student struggles with

learn to play it

the technique side is developed within the context real music

a little theory to highlight a few points of interest..

then experiment with what you've learned..

next song / piece for a fresh challenge

MatthewShreddery

That's a solid approach - your students should consider themselves lucky to have a good teacher

carlos

Solid approach, Clarky. It really goes back to repertoire and what people want to do with the instrument.

Clarky

haa thanks guys… actually, all of my students are making great strides..

I'm immensely proud of all of them and what they've achieved so far…

erm.. apologies for the topic divergence.. lol..

GuyBoden

georgenadaintl said:

All the jazz fusion guys knew all about this stuff way before the 90s. The Mike Sterns, Scofields, McLaughlins and so on.

Yes, I agree,  I'm surprised that more UK players don't know this approach, it has been common knowledge with jazz Fusion and contemporary music as long as I can remember, late 1980's perhaps. But, I did study music at college as a teenager and have kept fairly up-to-date with current music theory ever since.