By JonR (jazzguitar.be, ibreathemusic, allaboutjazz etc.), excerpts fro mvarious posts:

You need to remember is that modal harmony doesn't work like major or minor key harmony. The kinds of chords and chord progressions you're probably thinking of are derived from Ionian (major) and Aeolian (minor) - or rather Harmonic Minor. The whole system of "functional" chord progressions is associated with major or minor keys, which (historically) evolved out of and supplanted the modal system. (The original medieval modes didn't use chords or harmony as we understand it.)

In so-called "modal jazz", which was a reaction against bebop and its complex functional chord progressions, they tried to abandon the whole idea of chord "progressions" (in the sense of a linked series with a logical movement from one to the next), and even chords built in 3rds (root-3rd-5th etc) - precisely because they knew a total break with major and minor keys was necessary; they had to "clear the decks". Chords built in 3rds (triads, 7ths, etc) came with too much functional "baggage". When we hear a dom7-type chord (ie major 3rd, minor 7th), we generally expect it to be a V7, about to resolve to a tonic. When we hear a min7 chord, we expect it to be a ii or vi, or maybe a iii. Modal jazz composers didn't want any such inbuilt messages or meanings in their chords; they wanted to explore modes as sources of pure melody, without any need for the harmony to "go" anywhere. A kind of meditative harmonic stasis, a single mood. So they built chords in 4ths as much as possible (but usually including 2nds, 5ths, and OK maybe the occasional 3rd somewhere). Chords built in 4ths ("quartal harmony") have an ambiguous sound, it's hard to tell what the root is supposed to be, and hard to discern any function in the chord; which is the idea. Chords in modal jazz often soundlike random bunches of notes, because that's more or less what they are.

So - to play lydian mode in jazz, you would have NO chord "progression". Youwould have ONE chord (if any), including various notes from the mode. For C lydian, there would be C in the bass; probably a G to support it; a maj7 (B) and a #11 (F#) to identify the mode. And then any other note from the mode that you felt like. If you did want to use tertian chords (triads and 7ths), then you might use a normal C or Cmaj7, with perhaps a second contrasting chord, such as D major. (This is what Joe Satriani did in Flying in a Blue Dream, which is - mostly - in C lydian: a C chord, with a brief D/C resolving back to C, to highlight the F# in the mode.) What you need to avoid (probably) is a G chord, F#dim, or D7, all of which will (due to familiarity) pull the sound back towards G major.

Some modes can stand using a few more chords (mixolydian anyway), but most are tonally weak, meaning too many chords (of the traditional triadic

variety) will point the sound towards the relative major key. So "modal harmony" means essentially one chord (anything built on the root),with possibly a second contrasting chord. Eg, if the root chord doesn't identifythe mode in itself (eg using Am7 for dorian, which could also stand for aeolianor phrygian), then you'd add a secondary chord which contains the crucial missing modal identifiers. So for A dorian mode, you'd include D, D7 or Bm asa contrast to Am, to provide the F# which tells you it's dorian (Am7 and Bm7 between them spell the whole mode, but Am and D are enough to imply it). But no other chords! The problem with building and using chords in the same way as you would in a major or minor key is that modes are tonally weaker than keys. Using I-IV-Vmay work with some, but it will often better to choose a different set; such as bII instead of V for phrygian, or bVII instead of V for mixolydian or dorian. Theother problem is that the more chords you use, the more it will start to sound like the relative major key (so use lots of chords in C dorian, and it might sound like a sequence in Bb major). This is why, in early modal jazz, they tried to make it sound as different as possible from keys by only using one chord for a long time, and/or by building chords in 4ths and 2nds instead of 3rds, so their identity was more ambiguous, less reminiscent of functional chords in keys. In rock music, nobody cares about separating key sounds from modal sounds as carefully as that (and they're more relaxed about it in jazz now too). You sometimes get a rock song that you could describe as wholly in a mode and not a key, but it will probably use normal triadic chords, and it's much more common for songs to mix modal sounds with traditional key sounds. Eg, for a major key song to use the bVII from mixolydian; or for amostly mixolydian tune to sometimes use the V from the major key. Quite often, the theoretical problem - or the confusion about terms - comes from trying to apply old concepts (sometimes even ancient ones) to music where they don't really fit. Rock music, eg, does sometimes resemble conventional tonal music, but just as often goes its own sweet way (following its own rules).IOW, there are certainly "common practices" in rock. But not many of them are interpretable using tonal theory (or modal theory); even if they are, it may not tell you anything useful about the music. Trying to use theoretical concepts to create music in the first place is also not a good idea. (Hence questions about what one "can" or "can't" do, which are nonsensical in a way.You "can" - and should - do anything you like, if it sounds good.) Use theoretical jargon to try to describe existing music, by all means - making sureyou understand and define terms properly to start with. But don't use it to criticise music ("this tune is wrong because that chord doesn't belong in this key"), nor to justify a way of composing a piece of music; it's giving yourself a straitjacket to work in. Of course, to write music in a particular style or genre (especially a historical one), you need to know the rules of that genre, the sounds that define it. Theory is useful there. But in contemporary vernacular music (such as rock), you make the rules as you go; most of them

are intuitive, if you've been immersed in the genre long enough. It doesn't really help to give everything a theoretical name, any more than knowing the names of the muscles in your legs helps you walk down the street. Modal music as opposed to key-based music.

There is a lot of overlap between the two styles - even in the same song sometimes. But IMO the distinction is useful.

(I'm sure I've posted the following before here, apologies if you've read it before...)

Key-based = major-minor key system = functional harmony = chord progressions, where each chord is a link in a chain, moving from consonance to dissonance and back, usually in a fairly predictable way. Each chord has a meaning in the sequence, a role to play. This kind of music "tells a story".It's the system that classical music was based on for (very approximately) 300 years, up to about 100 years ago.It's the system that jazz was based on up to around 50 years ago - and much of it still is.It's the system that all pop music is based on, all country music, most folk music.Most rock is also key-based.

Modal music = non-functional (static) harmony. Can consist of one chord throughout, or one chord for a long time. If there are chord changes, they are often to unrelated chords, with no (or little) sense of "resolution".Dissonance is used, but as a way of adding "colour", not as a way of setting up tension that needs resolution.Instead of "telling a story", modal music creates a single mood. It's often meditative, but can be groovy dance music as well.The best example of this kind of music today is Indian raga.It's the system European church music was based on for around 1000 years, from roughly 600 AD. They used 4 modes: Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian. Late in the day (around 1550), they added Ionian and Aeolian, which evolved into the modern major-minor key system.Jazz today usually combines modal ideas with key ideas. Rock does too, but less consciously.Blues is a modal music at heart, but with key-based harmonisations.

In modern modal music, chords are usually quartal (built in 4ths) rather than tertian (in 3rds). (In ancient modal music, there were no chords, as there are none today in Indian music.)

Miles Davis (with a lot of help from classically-trained Bill Evans) brought modal concepts to jazz in 1959.Modal concepts in rock/pop began (noticeably) in the early/mid-1960s. "Hard Days Night" opens with a famous modal chord. Martha and the Vandellas "Dancing in the Street" has a mixolydian verse. The Doors "Light My Fire" has a dorian keyboard solo. The Stones "Satisfaction" is a classic mixolydian riff, as is "The Last Time".

A good example of the distinctions between the two is the Beatles "Norwegian Wood". This spends 16 bars on E mixolydian; then moves to E dorian for 12 bars (Em-A-Em); then the last 4 bars are a ii-V in E major, resolving back to the mixolydian groove.The Beatles wrote a couple of pure mixolydian tunes: "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Within You Without You".There's a lot of mixolydian vibe in classic rock. Any song based on E, using A and D chords in passing (instead of A and B) is essentially E mixolydian. (I'm sure you can think of dozens...)Often, you get mixolydian verses, going into major key choruses. Examples of this are:"Sweet Child o Mine""Sympathy for the Devil""Hard Days Night"Mixolydian means "good rock groove". Key means "singalong chorus".

Van Morrison's "Moondance" is an example of a dorian verse, going to a minor key chorus.Santana's "Oye Como Va" is a pure dorian song (as are many Afro-Cuban tunes). You're right the distinction is not hard-edged. (There's been an ENORMOUS thread over on the gearpage site about Sweet Home Alabama, and whether it's in D mixolydian or G major. The majorityseem to go for D mixo; while I and a sizable minority reman convinced it's in G major.)

It comes down to where you hear a tonal centre of a piece of music.

Let's say you have these 2 chords cycling round and round:

|Em7 / A7 / |

Where do you hear the tonal centre? What note is "home"? To most people - on most situations - this is a classic E dorian groove. It has an "E minor" sound, but the A chord provides a major 6 (C#).But supposing (after several times round that sequence) we go to aD chord? Suddenly D is "home". It's as if all along we've been waiting for D. The Em stops being a i in E dorian, and is "revealed" as a ii in D major.This is because the major key is a much stronger sound than modaltonalities. (Otherwise the D would just sound like a bVII in E dorian.)

For this reason, modal chord sequences often centre around one chord, to make your ears focus on its root as the tonal centre (the keynote). You may get other chords, but - always - the tonic chord of the relative major key will either be excluded, or used quickly in passing, before it draws our ears away.

Here's a typical "rock mixolydian" sequence in E (again, it's a cycle):

||E / / / |E / D A ||

You could argue those chords are all in "key of D" - technically true,but the tonal centre is clearly E. That's the "keynote". D is the bVII chord.

Key-based sequences typically have a lot more chords - and (as Jedsays) - they can incorporate non-diatonic chords, for colour or extramovement, because the major key tonality is so strong. We can move some way out of it, because it will always draw us back. Opposed to tonal. Keeping it very simple. The difference in modal and tonal IMHO has to be heard.

Do a Dm chord, not Dm7 or Dm9 or Dm13 just a simple old Dm OK now go to a G chord. That is a ii V modal vamp.

Do it again Dm, G Again Dm, G. I do not hear any resolution. I do hear a mood

and as long as I just use the Dm, G that same mood continues.

Now do a Dm, G, again, but this time add the tonic C. Hear the difference? I hear resolution. I hear tonal.

That to me is the difference in modal and tonal. Modal is a mood -- no resolution just a mood -- imagine the chanting those monks did long ago -- that type of music sets a mood.

If you can not hear the difference going to be pretty hard to understand the difference. But, once you hear the resolution the mood vanishes and the tonal center comes into focus. That to me is the difference. - ^A: You're right it's a simple difference, which has to be heard. But I think you're using the word "tonal" wrongly. The opposite of tonal is atonal.Modal music is tonal, because modes are tonalities, with tonal centres. They are just weaker than keys.

The difference (in the harmony) is between modal and "functional". The chords work differently, in the way you've described.

...except you're misleading by calling a dorian vamp "ii-V". If it's modal, it's "i-IV" (in dorian mode). The tonal centre is i (Dm in yourexample).Add the C, as you describe, and Dm-G becomes a ii-V (in C), because the major key is a stronger tonality than dorian mode. Non-functional harmony - to simplify - is what so-called "modal jazz" was (is) all about.It consists - as steve suggests - of chords with no apparent "leading" purpose. IOW, with no job to do regarding the chords before and after. If indeed there are any chords before or after...A chord in non-functional harmony is just an isolated sound in its own right.

Examples in jazz are "Maiden Voyage" (Herbie Hancock), which consists of 4 different 7sus4 chords with no key relationship between them; and "Little Sunflower" by Freddie Hubbard, which consists of 16 bars on Dm7 (dorian mode) followed by 4 bars on Ebmaj7 and 4 bars on Dmaj7, which are repeated.Again, no diatonic connection between the chord or their scales. You can argue in the latter case that the Ebmaj7 is a kind of functional tension "leading to" the Dmaj7.In the same way you can argue that the Ebm7 in the bridge of MilesDavis's "So What" is a functional opposite to the Dm7 that the A

sections consist of. But it's more as if these semitone-above chords are mimicking the classic dominant-tonic dualism, in an almost sarcastic way. (Just think of the title of Miles's tune...it could also refer to the flippant nod in the direction of jazz standard tunes that its AABA structure represents).

But even that early in the modal jazz "movement", functionality played a significant role. The most adventurous track on the album - at least the one that seemed to break away most from previous jazz tradition - was "Flamenco Sketches", which consists of 5 different modes (again unrelated by key), over which the players improvised at random. IOW, while the players stuck to the indicatedmodes, there was no melody and no formal structure. But the transitions between modes were marked by the introduction of the V7 chord of the next mode - ie, they still used a functional device toguide them through the tune, to prepare the ear for the next modality.

The other way modal jazz sought to distance itself from functional harmony was to employ quartal chords in place of tertian ones - IOW chords built (primarily) in 4ths and 2nds rather than 3rds. Thisgave the chords an ambiguity, a rootless feel. Only tertian chords have clear functions, because their structure confirms a clear root identity, due to chord tones "pointing down" to the lowest note in the stack. In a 4th interval the top note is the acoustic root, so a stack of 4ths is always pointing upward to a root - a counter-intuitive sensation, because we expect a bass note to govern a chord identity; so the chords convey a sense of suspension or open-endedness, a kind of unstable equilibrium.Eg, rather than use a Dm7 as such on "So What", the two chords inthe theme are Em11 and Dm11, voiced R-4-b7-b3-5. There's a major 3rd on top, but the lower notes form a stack of perfect 4ths. The effect is to spell out the material of the mode, without suggesting much in the way of a "tonic", or (in the Em11) much in the way of a "dominant" or "subdominant".Likewise, in "All Blues" (another track from the same album), the vamp is based on a bass riff consisting of G-D-E-F, over which the saxes play a riff in 3rds using D-E-F-E and B-C-D-C, and the piano plays a chord consisting of the notes D-E-A. IOW, together it gives you every note of G mixolydian mode (root established by the bass), without anyone playing anything so obvious as a G7 chord. (Miles trumpet comes in on the B - the clear major 3rd, just to

underline that this isn't a blues as you know it.)

Since then, jazz has combined modal practices with functional ones,often in the same tune.

Modal influences in rock come largely from blues, which is a kind of modal folk music, not at all interested in functional harmony. (The I7 and IV7 are not functioning as dominants. The chords in general are almost an afterthought, commonly ignored by the melody and soloists.)Any time you have a long groove on a single chord, you have a modal, non-functional feel. Typically in rock (again as steve says) an apparent major key will have a bVII chord (eg D in key of E). This subverts the "Ionian" modal feel of the traditional major key with a mixolydian influence. The bVII denies the leading tone of the key (D# in key of E), removing the easy and predictable "perfect cadence" of classical music (B7>E).Still, it's rare to find a rock tune which is exclusively mixolydian. There are other ways of avoiding the dreaded V-I cadence, namely the classical IV-I or "plagal cadence". Rock much prefers to approach the tonic via a IV than a V. And even better if a bVII can be involved, as in the popular D-A-E cadence.And also, while mixolydian mode is definitely "cool", the old-fashioned major key still provides suitable sounds for singalong choruses, with commercial appeal. So rock songs rarely dispense with the major V chord altogether."Sweet Child o Mine" is a good example of the mixture: a pure mixolydian verse, with the V of the major key introduced in the chorus (although still alongside the bVII of mixolydian).You get the same combination in the Stones "Sympathy for the Devil": a mixolydian verse, with the major key V coming in for the chorus.

"Alright Now" by Free is an example of a purely mixolydian tune, asits "Gloria".A more subtle one is David Bowie's "Heroes", which uses a minor v chord for its fully D mixolydian sequence. (But it would be a mistake to describe this as "non-functional", IMO - there is a clear sense of progression from chord to chord, meaningful links betweenthem. It does have cadences; they are just modal rather than key-

based. I guess it depends how narrowly you want to define "functional".

As with many theoretical principles, the Beatles provide some good illustrations:

"Tomorrow Never Knows": exclusively C mixolydian vamp. No functional harmony at all. Not really any chords at all..."Within You Without You": ditto, pretty much. A suggestion of C dorian in the bridge."Norwegian Wood": E mixolydian main section, moving to E dorian (non-functional change), finishing with a functional ii-V in E major (F#m-B)."Blue Jay Way": C lydian mode, with an arpeggiated Cdim7 used asa functional tension (the opening melodic phrase)."Dear Prudence": mostly D mixolydian, but with a passing Gm chord.

John Lennon and George Harrison were both drawn to the ambiguous open-endedness of mixolydian (for its combination of bluesiness and mystical exoticism), while Paul McCartney was a staunch functionalist, an old-fashioned key man. That was partly what made them such a good team. (Although even Paul enjoyed the occasional wallow in mixolydian, as in the outro to "Hey Jude", the rest of which is classic major key.)In quite a lot of Beatles songs, you can see modal (mixolydian) verses or riffs, and functional bridges or choruses. "Hard Days Night" is one, with its classic non-functional opening chord (a sort of G9sus4). Right back in their earliest stuff, in fact, you can discern modal qualities (the mixolydian hints in "Love Me Do") although they tended then to get drawn back to the functional practices of their main pop influences.Naturally they had no idea of the theoretical ramifications of what they did. They couldn't have cared less... Quote:

Originally Posted by YOGA64

All of you have been most helpful!!!!

Having studied classical harmony in college didn't prepare me at all to make sense of "rock"

and "pop" harmony.............

Are there any GOOD books I can study that deal with harmony from that perspective?

Any further help would be MUCH appreciated

Rock and pop harmony is based quite a lot on classical functional principles - certainly more than it is on 20thC post-classical theory.But it does - as I said - borrow heavily from non-classical influences, filtered through blues and European folk music (particularly Celtic).

Basically, if you understand low level classical theory (I-IV-V at least) and you understand blues, you have a pretty good handle on what you'll find in rock. Just combine that with mixolydian and dorian, and there isn't much else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------by stevel @ thegearpage.net board:

Functional harmony actually has two jobs. Most people know about the first - progress towards the Tonic. Most people do not understand the 2nd, which is to establish the tonality.

Non-Functional harmony does not progress to the tonic or assist in the establishment of the tonal center.

Progressions in Common Practice Period Tonal music (basically the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods) are *largely* functional though they contain non-functional passages.

Functional progressions are generally the so-called "ascending progressions" which are up a 4th, up a 2nd, and down a 3rd.

In CPP Tonality:

iii - vi - ii - V - I--------IV-viio---

Left to right is functional. From the lower row to the upper row is functional. vi-IV, IV-ii, viio-V, ii-viio, and IV-V and viio-I are all functional progressions.

Likewise, V-vi is considered a progression as is skipping diagonally down - iii-IV and vi-viio are progressions (note these are all "deceptive type" progressions - up a 2nd).

Everything else is considered a retrogression or non-functional progression (though there are more exceptions than I've gone into here - for example, I is like the Queen in chess - it can go anywhere).

Now, when you get past the Romantic period, people have loosened up or adjusted their definitions to accommodate newer styles of music (especially Jazz and modern pop). For instance, in blues-based rock, something like bIII-I (or i) is acommon cadence - think of Smoke on the Water last phrase - G(m) - Bb - C - Bb - G(m).

No dominant chord in sight.Not even a Plagal cadence.

Is it functional? No. Not officially. But people can't take that because they think it "sounds so right" "sounds so conclusive""sounds like it's definitely leading to I".

But it's not functional harmony in the traditional sense. It's a "new functionality" but rather than defining new elements todescribe this type of music, people adapted other existing terminology (incorrectly in many cases) and in many ways "dumbed down" the meanings of the concepts.

Is it CPP Functional. No. Is it "Rock Functional" - I think so.

So what "functional" is can vary from style to style depending on how people use the terminology. As far as CPP music is concerned, it's pretty well-defined though. Past the 1900s, not so much.

Steve------------Ken brings up a good point that maybe I didn't make as articulately as possible - yes - not only is it a grey area between styles, but even within a single style it can be sometimes hard to tell.

For example, the famous Pachelbel Canon goes "the wrong way":

I - V - vi - iii - IV - I - IV - V

But look at every other chord:

I - vi - IV - (IV)- V

That's a "standard" functional progression. But in this piece, each of these "functional pillars" are "decorated by" a chord a 4th below (which by the way does produce a functional progression to the next chord - V-vi, iii-IV, etc.). So it's a "largely functional progression" that contains non-functional elements (it's also a Sequence and many non-functional passages are sequential - in the absence of functional harmony to "give direction" to a passage, a Sequence can do that instead).

Another example is:

i - v6 - iv6 - V. The "real" progression is I-V, and the v6 and iv6 (first inversion of *minor* v and iv) are what are called "linear" chords - they're really "connective tissue" (and again, a lot of non-functional passages include linear chords because again, in the absence of functional directionality, the linear chords produce a directionality, and thus logic all theirown - "sixth chords" (first inversion chords) are often employed for this).

But another "grey area" is with something like a cadence of:

v-I or bVII-I

"functional" harmony dictates that the V or viio should be "dominant type" chords - V or viio (G or Bdim in the key of C).

v (minor v, Gm in C) is a "non-dominant five".

bVII (Bb in C) is a "non-dominant seven".

But in modally derived/influenced music, they're quite common (especially bVII, a staple of rock) and they're basically "pretending to be the dominant".

So we *should* consider them functional progressions in that context (though they can appear in other contexts where they aren't functional).

Best,Steve

------------

Originally Posted by purestmonk In CPP Tonality:

iii - vi - ii - V - I--------IV-viio---

Steve, can you explain the above again? I know my numerals well but I dont understand your diagram and instructions .. btw viio is half diminished?

Oh you jazzers, you think everything is a 7th chord :-)

No, these are just triads - but actually adding the 7ths doesn't change anything (so in Major vii would be half-diminshed, or m7b5 for those so inclined)

So reading across the top:

iii progresses to vi.vi progresses to ii.ii progresses to V.V progresses to I.

Many people call these "circle of 5ths" (I prefer Cycle of 4ths) progressions.

the bottom line:

IV progresses to viio (also a Cycle of 4ths progression)viio progresses to I

Actually it's hard to draw this diagram, but the ii and IV should be in a "class" (column) together (called the sub-dominant, pre-dominant, or dominant-prep class) and V and viio together (in the Dominant class).

Movement UP within a class is still considered "progressing" (thus functional) though not as "strong" of a progression, so:

IV progresses to iiviio progresses to V

In both of those cases we might say the first chord "becomes a stronger version" of itself by becoming the next chord.

So basically if you're moving left to right from column to column, or up within a column, it's progressing:

|ii > |V > ||iii > |vi > { ^ ^ } I |IV > |viio >|

If you're moving right to left, or down within a column, you're "retrogressing" or moving away from the tonic - i.e. a form of non-functional progression (with the exception of the V-vi progression, which is considered progressing because the vi is a stand in for I).

iii-IV (so it skips one column, the vi chord) is a progression, and so is vi-viio (though it's an uncommon progression in classical music).

By the way, it's basically the same for minor keys with a few subtle differences.

I have a PDF of a chart as a graphic. If you want me to email it to you, let me know.

Steve

-------------Quote:

Originally Posted by docbop

Okay from studying in Jazz schools about how chords pull.

Tonic chords that sound at home, at rest. Subdominant chord wanting to move away from home. The Dominant chords that want to return home.

In diatonic harmony then

Tonics are I, III, VI.Subdominants are II, IV.Dominants are V, VII.

Functioning and non-functioning would be used to describe if a chord is acting like itself. A diminished is functional, or X is a functioning dominant. How a chord is functioning determines your scale choices for improv or composition.

This is only partly true for CPP tonal music.

I is the Tonic. Period.

iii and vi do have "tonic-like" attributes, and composers of course took advantage of this in the V-vi deceptive progression/cadence. vi basically "sounds so similar" to the Tonic that the progression is highly logical, but with a "twist", which is why it works.

iii though rarely functions as a "tonic substitute" in CPP music (though people trained with different backgrounds sometimes analyze it that way).

In jazz, since the fundamental chord structure is a tetrad instead of a triad, vi and iii do take on much more similarities tothe Tonic - obviously, vi7 is basically a I6 (not first inversion here, but like C-E-G-A). Likewise, many structures in jazz are

seen as "rootless" versions of other harmonies, so iii is itself an extension of IM7 thus the similarity in sound and function.

There's the same obvious connection between IV6 and ii7, and V9 (b9) and viim7b5 (o7).

In fact, the more extensions you add, the "more similar" chords become. A V13 basically uses all of the notes of the scaleso really all the chords become one. That's why perception of root (i.e. maintaining functionality) becomes important, andwhy chromatic voice leading can help to define harmonic movement in a way that a lot of notes can't (because so many tones have the option of being common tones between chords - way more so than when using simple triads).

Steve

---------Maybe I'll add why the "ascending" progressions are called that:

G-AE-EC-C

I - vi - roots down a 3rd (or you could call it up a 6th)

G-AE-FC-C

I - IV - roots up a 4th.

G-AE-FC-D

I - ii - roots up a 2nd.

Those are the only possible combination of note movements that produce other chords common to the key and of course they have one, two, or all three notes ASCEND. All other motions - DOWN - make the other three possible changes - up a3rd (I-iii), down a 4th (I-V) and down a 2nd (I-viio). These are DESCENDING progressions.

The only remaining possibility is to have none of the notes of the triad move, creating I-I, a "non-progression".

So that's a total of 7 - 3 ascending, 3 descending, and 1 stationary (7 chords in the key, 7 possible movements).

One of the big distinctions between pre-CPP modality (Renaissance period) and CPP Tonality is that prior to the CPP (and modality in general) tended to favor *all types* - both ascending an descending progressions. CPP music tends to favor ascending types.

Much rock and pop, modal jazz, folk, etc. do not focus on ascending progressions either (though a lot does of course). In fact, people have gone so far as to say "rock intentionally uses retrogressions" or "is like the music is backwards" (the latter being largely derogatory of course) but what's happening is, in an attempt to sound "less classical" chord progressions like I - bVII - IV - I (sometimes called a "double-plagal progression") are employed for their "anti-progressing" qualities.

(note I don't believe they set out to do that intentionally with all this forethought about the theory - as Jon has said, theory is Descriptive, not Prescriptive - but it's something they intuitively knew, "sounded different")

So you will find a LOT of descending progressions in rock.

Are they "non-functional" though. From a CPP perspective, they aren't functional, but IMHO that definition needs to be modified for contemporary non-CPP styles.

Peace,

Steve

Originally Posted by purestmonk i see, thanks for explainingseems kinda like arbitrary system!

Anyway, does functional = tonal harmony and non-functional = atonal ??Rather than arbitrary, I'd say it's "dependent on style".

Tonal Harmony (with a capital T and H :-) is created/maintained by using functional progressions.

Atonal is a tough word - it carries a lot of baggage.

The March from the Nutcracker Ballet does not use functional progressions, but most people would say it's pretty obviously tonal and not Atonal.

In other words, a "tonal center" can be formed using non-functional progressions. It's not "officially" tonal, but it's certainly much closer to tonality than something that's both non-functional and doesn't establish a tonal center (Atonality).

Certainly though, it's difficult to establish atonality using functional progressions because obviously they're so closely associated you can't really separate the two.

Steve

-----------

Originally Posted by Fretgears Question is does an unaltered augmented triad sound atonal to us when individual notes are played in series?

Does the decoration then make it "tonal"?Just F everyone's I (FYI) Liszt and Wagner were doing this long before Giant Steps.

Even Beethoven.

In Tonal Music, it doesn't matter how key centers are related, only that key centers are established.

If it starts in C, moves to E, then to Ab (and typically back to C of course) it's still Tonal if each section has established a key center.

Modulations do not negate Tonality, they just move it to a different pitch level.

Now, a *chord progression* of C-E-Ab is not a typical functional harmonic progression that elicits any strong sense of tonality other than what is promoted by duration, starting/ending chord, etc.

C-E-Ab-G7-C. Tonal. The E is the only "out of place" chord. A so-called "color" chord.

Steve

http://www.franksinger.com

Modal Progressions consist of chords created exclusively from one mode. Like any chord progression, the chord sequences must produce resolution to the I chord of the key. In order to characterize the particular mode, the predominant secondary chords must contain the unique notes of the mode. Unique Notesexamples in key of C

Mode----- Formula

UniqueNote(s)

----- Scale

Degree

SecondaryChord(s)

----- Rom. Num.

Analysis

Lydian

1 - 2 - 3 - #4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8/1

#4

D7, F#-7b5,Bm7 -----

II7, #IV-7b5,VIIm7

Ionian

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8/1

4, 7

Dm7, Fmaj7,G7 -----

IIm7, IVmaj7,V7

Mixolydian

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - b7 - 8/1

b7

Bbmaj7,Gm7 -----

bVIImaj7,Vm7

Dorian

1 - 2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - b7 - 8/1

6

Dm7, F7 -----

IIm7, IV7

Aeolian

1 - 2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - b6 - b7 - 8/1

2, b6

Bb7, Gm7,Abmaj7,

Fm7 -----

bVII7, Vm7,bVImaj7,

IVm7

Phrygian

1 - b2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - b6 - b7 - 8/1

b2

Dbmaj7 -----

bIImaj7

Locrian

1 - b2 - b3 - 4 - b5 - b6 - b7 - 8/1

b5

Gbmaj7 -----

bVmaj7

Modal harmony is exclusive, meaning only scale tones are used to construct the chords of the harmonic progressions. Excepting the Ionian mode, which produces harmony equivalent to diatonic harmony, modal progressions lack a primary dominant chord. This lack of cycle of fifthsdominant-to-tonic resolution increases the risk of harmonic drift, which occurs when a series of chords produces resolution to the tonic of the parent scale instead of the mode's I chord. This means most modal progressions use two or three chordsin a repeating vamp, using repetition to reinforce the tonal center.

Modal Chord Groups

Mode Main Chords Example in Key of C

Ionian I, IIm7, V7

I, IV, V7C, Dm7, G7

C, F, G7

Mixolydian I, bVII C, Bb

Dorian Im7, IIm7

Im7, IV7Cm7, Dm7

Cm7, F7

Aeolian Im7, IVm7, Vm7

Im7, bVII, bVICm7, Fm7, Gm7

Cm7, Bb, Ab

Phryian Im7, bIImaj7 Cm7, Dbmaj7

The addition of less modally-defined chords occurs, often with less frequency or duration. The IV chord is often added to a Mixolydian progression, and the bIII chord is added to Phrygian progressions. These chords do not definethe mode, but introduce some additional harmonic motion.

Lydian and Locrian do not produce harmonic progression, as the I chords in these modes don't produce a feeling of resolution using secondary chords containing unique notes from the mode.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.riddleworks.com

Modal Harmony By Dan Palladino

Modal Harmony By Dan Palladino

Here is the usual way musicians think about applying the modes to harmony:

Harmonized C major scale

Scale Degree Chord Name Mode

I C or Cmaj7 C Ionian

ii D- or D-7 D Dorian

iii E- or E-7 E Phrygian

IV F or Fmaj7 F Lydian

V G or G7 G Mixo-Lydian

vi A- or A-7 A Aeolian

vii B° or B-7(b5) B Locrian

Of course there's nothing wrong with approaching the modes in this way. It's not the only way, however.

Let's try an experiment. Record this progression on whatever device you have:

| C | D- | C | D- |

Repeat it several times.

Now rewind and improvise over it using nothing but the Cmajor scale. Sounds good, right?

Try playing the E Phrygian mode over the same progression. Does it sound any different? Not really.

Try the same progression, but play a C major scale over the C chord, and a D Dorian scale over the D- chord. Anydifferent yet? Well, you're emphasizing the roots of the chords as they change, but it still pretty much sounds likethe same ol' key of C major, right?

Try it with any of the modes listed in the chart above.

It still sounds like the key of C major, doesn't it? That's because harmony affects how a melody is perceived. I don't care what you play over that progression, it will sound like C major every single time.

By the way, our example progression isn't modal harmony--it's a major "tonality". You hear tonality all the time in pop ballads, for instance. Usually, there is a progression of many different chords that occur in one or more keys.

Modal harmony is most often characterized by short, repetitive progressions, or vamps. Modal melodies usually don't stray far from the seven notes that naturally

occur in the mode.

Let's harmonize the modes:

Mode Scale Formula Harmonization

Ionian 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8I maj7, II-7, III-7, IVmaj7, V7, VI-7, VII-

7(b5)

Lydian 1, 2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7, 8I maj7, II7, III-7, #IV-7(b5), V maj7, VI-7,

VII-7

Mixo-Lydian 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7, 8I7, II-7, III-7(b5), IVmaj7, V-7, VI-7, VII

maj7

Aeolian 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7, 8I-7, II-7(b5), bIII maj7,

IV-7, V-7, bVI maj7,bVII7

Dorian 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7, 8I-7, II-7, bIII maj7, IV7,

V-7, VI-7(b5), bVIImaj7

Phrygian 1, b2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7, 8I-7, bII maj7, bIII7, IV-7, V-7(b5), bVI maj7,

bVII-7

Locrian1, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7,

8

I-7(b5), bII maj7, bIII-7,IV-7, bV maj7, bVI7,

bVII-7

Here are some guidelines to follow when creating modal harmony and melody:

1) Emphasize the one chord frequently.(Don't stray too far without returning to the one chord.) 2) Use vamps when possible. 3) Effective modal melodies are usually diatonic.

Here are some examples of modal chord progressions:

Dorian: | D-7 | E-7 | Fmaj7 | E-7 | Phrygian: | E-7 | Fmaj7 | E-7 | D-7 | Aeolian: | A- | F | C | G |

Notice how the progressions don't go too far before returning to the one chord.

Try improvising over these progressions using the modes indicated.

"So, how does this help me?", you may ask. Well, if you know how these modal progressions sound, you won't need to fish around for

the right notes to improvise over them. You'll hear the Dorian progression above and think, "Aha! That sounds Dorian." Your ear will recognize these things as sounds instead of a series of chords.

If you're a writer, this opens up a whole new realm of possibility for your compositions. Why stick to the same old major and minor progressions, when you can throw in some modal harmony to spice things up?

My suggestion would be to spend some time with the harmonization chart above. Learn what the harmonizations look and sound like.

Vamps

Remember back in "Why Learn Modes?" we discussed the differences between the modes? We're going to use that information to come up with some modal vamps.

We said the F Lydian mode was the F major scale with a raised fourth. Let's find chords that contain the raised fourth, and alternate them with the "one" chord to form our vamp. Here's what I came up with:

These chords all contain the note B.

B-7(b5), G or G7, E-7, Cmaj7, A-9

Let's make some vamps:

|: Fmaj7 | Cmaj7 :| |: F | G :| |: F | G/F :| |: Fmaj7 | E-7 :|

Notice how these vamps all have a similar sound? Play the F Lydian mode over them.

Here's the procedure for coming up with modal vamps:

1) Find the differences between the major modes and the major scale. For the minor modes, compare to the natural minor scale. Identify the notes that make the mode different from the major or minor scale. 2) Take those notes and find the chords that contain them. 3) Alternate between the one chord and the chords that contain the "difference" notes. 4) Have a frosty beer and reflect on a job well done.

Here's some vamps for the E Phrygian mode:

The E Phrygian scale is the E natural minor scale with a lowered second, so let's find chords with the note F in them.

Fmaj7, D-7, B-7(b5), G7

Here's some vamps:

|: E-7 | Fmaj7 :| |: E-7 | D-7 :|

|: E-7 | B-7(b5) :| |: E-7 | G7 :|

Do you notice how these vamps have a specific flavor to them? This is the Phrygian sound.

I'm going to list the most COMMON modal vamps here. It doesn't mean that these are the best and others wouldn't be as good. However, these are the ones you are most likely to run into in the real world. You should try to come up with as many as possible on your own.

Dorian: |: D-7 | G7 :|

Phrygian: |: E-7 | Fmaj7 :|

Lydian: |: Fmaj7 | G/F :|

Mixo-Lydian: |: G | F :|

Aeolian: |: A- | F :|

Locrian is a special case. Since one of the notes that characterizes the Locrian mode is the lowered second, a possible vamp would be |: B-7(b5) | Cmaj7 :|

The problem is, the B-7(b5) sounds like it wants to resolve to the Cmaj7, making this vamp sound like it's in the key of C major, not B Locrian. You will find that this is true for any vamp you could come up with. Try it. Your ear will tell you that I'm right.

If you really want to write some music in the Locrian mode, I would suggest using an ostinato bass pattern made up of the notes of the Locrian mode. The repeated figure will be enough to imply the sound you're looking for. (An ostinato pattern is simply a pattern of notes that repeats over and over again.)

If you come up with any interesting Locrian vamps or patterns, email me and I'll post them on this page.

If you are a songwriter, how about using a modal vamp as your verse? Then go to a relative major key for the chorus. Or how about a modal bridge? How about an entire song based on a modal vamp?

If you are a player, you should see many new possibilities for improvisation. Remember, any chord progression can be navigated using scales. Learning the modes and their harmonizations give you more tools to work with.

I hope exploring this material makes your musical life richer in some way. Keep playing and writing!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/

What's the difference between “modal music” and “tonal music”?

Answer

"Modal" and "tonal" both describe works that:1. have one defined "home" pitch, or "tonal center," around which the melody and harmony

are based;2. have only one tonal center at a time, though that tonal center can change throughout a

piece; and3. use a seven-note diatonic scale as their pitch collections.

The difference between modal and tonal are in the harmonic languages surrounding the tonal center. Tonality implies the system of common-practice harmony well-established by the eighteenth century that uses major and minor keys. The tonal center of a tonal work is the first note of the major or minor scale in use as the pitch collection. The harmonic implicationsof tonality are more than just the use of major and minor scales, asfunctional harmony is also a feature of tonal music. The progression from the dominant sonority (a major triad with or without a minor seventh from the triad root based on the fifth note of the major or minor scalein use, or a similar-sounding substitute such as a fully-diminished seventh chord based on the leading tone) to the tonic triad to end a work is just one characteristic of functional harmony. This characteristic is so important that, if the dominant sonority is instead a minor chord (thereby lacking the leading tone), the work no longer sounds tonal. This means that even in a minor key, the seventh note of the scale is very often raised so that it becomes the leading tone.Modal music uses diatonic scales that are not necessarily major or minor and does not use functional harmony as we understand it within tonality. The term modal is most often associated with the eight church modes. The tonal center of these modes is called its "final." All the church modes use a pattern of half and whole steps that could be played on the white keys of a piano. You may notice that there are only four different patterns among the church modes; the difference between e.g. "dorian" and "hypodorian" is whether the final occurs at or near the bottom of the melodic range or whether the final occurs in the middle of the melodic range. The term "modal" has expanded in more modern music to encompass any non-tonal music that uses a diatonic pitch collection and has a tonal center.There are many types of music other than modal and tonal. Some examples include:1. chromatic music, which uses all twelve of the standard Western pitch classes instead of

the diatonic pitch collection, and which may or may not have a tonal center;2. serial music, sometimes called "dodecaphonic," which is chromatic music that

intentionally avoids a tonal center, often by avoiding repetition of a pitch class until all twelve pitch classes have been used;

3. bitonal or polytonal music, which uses multiple diatonic pitch collections and multiple tonal centers simultaneously;

4. microtonal music, which uses pitches with frequencies between those of the standard twelve Western pitch classes;

5. whole-tone music, which uses a six-note scale comprised entirely of whole steps; and6. non-Western music, which uses a pitch collection outside the twelve Western pitches

(this is not a good classification, as there are many cultures with many different kinds of music that are very different from one another in pitch collection).

I did not even touch on music that does not use pitches at all; for example, an unpitched percussion work would clearly not be modal or tonal.There are entire books on functional harmony, modes, etc., but I hope this has been a reasonable summary to answer your question.

http://www.ars-nova.com

How do I write a chord progression in the Phrygian mode?

Question: Creating modal music: If I am creating a chord progression in the Phrygian mode, and I am making sure the tonic of each chord falls within the Phrygian scale, do I have to use all of the notes of the scale in order to be purely modal? Or do Ihave to use all of the notes that make it distinctly Phrygian in order to be purely modal? Example: Since the intervals that distinguish Phrygian are the flatted second, and the flatted sixth, so do I have to include chords that have both of those as the tonic, or can I just use one, and have it be purely modal? -Nate

Answer: That is a really interesting one. Actually the modes and harmony are kind of at odds with each other. There is a verygood book that touches on this, Between Modes and Keys, by Joel Lester (Pendragon, 1989). The modes were part of a monophonic tradition, and polyphony has a tendency to reduce the modes essentially to two, the modern major and minor.

For example, the interplay of voices leads to the desire for leading tones in dominant harmony, so that a performer or composer is tempted to sharp the 7th in Dorian or Mixolydian or Phrygian. So Mixolydian then becomes indistinguishable fromIonian (major), and Dorian turns into melodic minor. In Lydian mode there was a frequent practice of flatting the 4th degree, which converts Lydian into major. Into the eighteenth century it was still common to write the key signature for, say, G minor with one less flat, as if it were Dorian, yet the other flat was written in as an accidental or was expected to be supplied by the player, converting the key to minor. And so on. This is how we ended up with two basic modes; it was the evolution of harmonic thinking applied to modal melody.

But what you want to have is practical advice on creating what could be called modal harmony. We're modern people and will hardly be able to avoid thinking in terms of chords, so the first principle will be that the chords you use need to stick to the notes of the mode, with only occasional departures. You ask whether the modal melody needs to include all the notes of the mode: what it needs, as you suggest, is to include at least the notes that characterize the mode. For example, in a D Dorian piece you want to make sure to use that B natural (the major sixth above the tonic is what sets Dorian apart from normal minor). Examples in popular style could be taken from old fiddle and folk tunes, many of which are in Dorian or Mixolydian or Aeolian (natural minor). Here's the first part of Red Haired Boy, which is Mixolydian. What makes Mixolydian different from major is the low seventh degree (looks like G major, but without the F sharp):

In answer to the second part of your question, no, you don't need to include chords whose roots are the characteristic tones of the mode. The characteristic tone might happen to be the 3rd or 5th in a chord. For Red Haired Boy the F natural fits well in a minor v chord (D minor here), though you could also use F major:

"Scarborough Fair" is in Dorian, with the characteristic major sixth replacing the minor sixth of modern minor. It can easily be harmonized with IV (G major in D Dorian as below):

It's harder to find tunes in Phrygian, but we can make one up for illustration. You're right that a characteristic of Phrygian is the low second degree: F natural in E Phrygian. No other traditional mode starts with a half step (I'm excluding the theoretical"Locrian mode"). We could harmonize that with d minor, showing that the characteristic tone doesn't have to be the root of a chord:

Of course, to our ears the above has a strong tendency to sound like it's in C major but just not ending on the right note. You could introduce a non-modal tone to strengthen the cadence to E at a phrase ending. A leading tone like the D# below would pretty much have to be harmonized with a B major or B7 chord, though, and that introduces not one but 2 non-modal tones:

The more you do that sort of thing, the less this sounds like Phrygian. But inconsistency is not necessarily bad in music.

Another approach is to start like the old polyphonists did, with a single melody and add more polyphonic voices. The other voices are adapted to the primary melody following typical principles of counterpoint (our Counterpointer software teaches that). Traditional modal harmony would not be built on a "chord progression," which is a modern concept; it would arise from the interplay of voices.

Whatever you do in modal writing, the listener may still not be hearing the tonic in the way you expect. But we say, "if it sounds good, do it."

By JonR

Functional sequences as such are quite easy to describe, and not too difficult to spot. (All the classic jazz standards of the 1920s, 30s and 40s are of this type.)Generally, they use "tertian" harmony (root triads with extensions up to 13ths and various alterations), and there is typically a group of chords with a sense of key centre. You have one chord which feels "stable", like a home or rest point, and other clearly related chords (harmonised from the same scale or very similar) which represent varying tensions away from that. It feels like the music is moving forward harmonically (over and above any rhythmic drive), with a "tale to tell".In contrast, modal harmony is typically based on quartal chords (named in tertian language as various kinds of sus chords, or slash chords). One chord may last a long time, but when (if) it changes, the next chord won't have a key relationship with it. It will go somewhere else, but not out of any sense of "narrative connection". IOW, rather than functional harmony's sense of chords constantly moving forward, going up and down (or in and out) in levels of tension, modal harmony feels more like a series ofstatic positions.Where functional harmony "tells a story", modal harmony is a series of "moods". Its chords can sound "expectant", but the tensions in them are colouristic, with no functional meaning. They give no clue as to what chord might come next.In contrast, functional harmony is full of clues and signs about what's coming - if often wrong-foots you, with "deceptive cadences", but that's part of its game. It leads you by the hand, but sometimes (maybe when you feel you know where it's going) it drags you somewhere more interesting.Modal harmony just sits there, asking you to contemplate the surroundings; when it changes, it's like "OK, now look over here".

Thinking about it this way, you can understand Miles's desire to get off the by-then tedious roller-coaster of functional bebop, and find something genuinely "cool", in every sense. Something beautifully static andmeditative. Rather than a single chord being a limitation, it was a liberation.

But when I say modal theory doesn't explain functional harmony, I mean that it considers each chord in

isolation. That's because that's how modal music works. Each chord is a world unto itself.This is not the case in functional harmony; no single chord makes sense on its own, you need to know where it's come from and where it's going. "Function" simply means the chord has a job, a role in a progression in a "key". It's a cog in a machine. Separate the cogs from each other, and the machine stopsworking .

In the modal perspective, the chord root rules, and all the other notes have a roughly equal value. Modal jazz tends to reject triadic chords, because of their functional associations, going for ambiguous quartal sounds, or random, fluid voicings.

In the functional perspective, the chord root is a numbered scale degree; the "tonic" of the key rules, as "I"; the 3rd and 7th of each chord are almost as important as the root, arguably more so; they are the "guide tones" which drive the harmony forward. If other extensions are employed, they will either be reflecting melody notes, or taking part in some other kind of voice-leading between chords either side. Alterations too are designed to provide more interesting chromatic voice moves; eg a b5 can lead by half-step to a following root. (A "7alt" chord is not just a tasty stack of dissonances; it's a set of half-steps on their way to chord tones or extensions on the tonic.)

IOW, modal is all about the chords, on their own. It's the cast of characters in a film. Functional is all about the movement between the chords; it's the story, the plot. In that sense, yes, they can (and should!) work together. But you can't describe a film to someone by just saying who's in it. You have to talk about what happens.