In another thread, keyboardklutz's post re modes in contemporary music mentioned that modes are modified above the dominant. This reminded me that I don't understand "modes." I've been trying to figure out this subject, especially from the standpoint of how it actually effects playing.

My confusion stems primarily from thinking that chord tones should be the principal source for improvising/writing.

I've printed out the Wikipedia info here, but remain confused. Under the section headed "Chords" it says, "In jazz, the modes correspond to and are played over particular chords. The chord examples below are shown for the modes of the key of C. For example, over an Fmaj7#11 chord, musicians typically play notes from the F Lydian mode."

I can puzzle out the notes, but somehow I'm not understanding the result. If the above example were stated,... "over an Fmaj7" (no #11), would notes from the F Lydian mode still be preferred?

If the example were modified so that the chord were Fm, what mode would be preferred?

Any guidance - including where to go for practical examples - would be very much appreciated.

Oh wow. No wonder you're confused. Modes are basically 'scales' that originate on different white keys. The result is that each has a different arrangement of whole and half steps. That's what makes them sound different.

scale starting on:
C - Ionian
D - Dorian
E - Phrygian
F - Lydian
G - Mixolydian
A - Aolian
B - Locrian (classicly considered as a theoretical mode, not a practical one)

I hopes that helps a little bit.

Scott, thanks for replying. I'm going to try - again - plinking thru the modes, with your info in mind. Maybe something will click.

Did some plinking and some more reading. Let's see if I'm understanding the basics. In the Wikipedia example above - Fmaj7 (but no #11, because I'm trying to get a handle on the basics) - would the possible notes for an Fmaj7 chord be F, G, A, A#/Bb, C, D, and E?

Is this about chords at all?

The ancient Greek tonoi (octave species- basically, what ScottM describes above) each had a different "affect," what the Greeks called ethos (i.e., each one had a different character, and listening to music based on any one of them would affect the listener's character). The Romans translated this meaning of ethos as modus, where we get our word, "mode." They are basically what we would now call "scales." In the European world, the earliest, and purest, known usage of the modes was that of chant.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the "play-this-mode-over-this-chord" nonsense - most of the people who promote this way of thinking are fooling themselves. The IV chord of a major key is just that - the IV chord of a major key, not the Lydian mode. A mode is only a mode if it SOUNDS like a mode. A major scale and its relative Lydian mode are exactly the same notes. Whether you think you're playing C major or F Lydian over the IV chord (in the key C major) doesn't matter - it will sound the same. A piece of music has to convincingly shift the tonal center from whatever key it's in to one of its relative modes for it to be truly modal.

I'm not working with chords (or even modes currently) at present - but for future reference:

F Lydian basically is a scale in Lydian mode that starts on F and goes FGABCDEF. The I chord would be the 1st, 3rd, and 5th degrees of those notes. Therefore my I chord of F Lydian is is FAC. This would obviously be the IV chord of C major.

So that would be the pattern if I got it right. Did I?

I imagine the first thing in understanding modes would be to not worry about chords at all but simply understand what the modes are about. (?)

Looking for a "I chord" in a mode automatically places it in a tonal context (not modal). I think the best way to understand modes is to study the extant Greek treatises, and Eurpoean chant (i.e. 'Gregorian chant'). Learn from the purely melodic (linear) aspect from which they originated.

That was my next question. I was going by your answer to the other poster's question, which ionvolved chords. I suppose that when modes are used in jazz we do have chords (I know zilch about jazz) (?) But in the time of modes, were there chords in the way we think of them today? Chords (I think?) have to do with harmony ???

Erm, I think I'll study this in proper order.

In the times I refer to, there was no harmony in modes at all. You can have harmony in modal music but it's not functional (otherwise, you'd have tonality).

I think I understand. Am I right that chords as we perceive them are part of the construct of harmony? Although, if we see contrapunctual music, with four voices lined up one beneath the other we "end up" with chords.

What I am imagining is that when we ask about chords in reference to modes, we are trying to perceive modal music within our modern context.

Or, since we have modern music (which has harmony) where we apply modal scales at some points, we are mixing the two. (?)

I think it's OK to look at modes within a modern or common practice context (because, in truth, we cannot extricate modal components from tonality), but I think that it's imperative that we be aware of the original usage. Ignorance of this is why people are so confused about modes.

Thank you, Harmosis. In part I wanted to bring this out in my question, and in part I wanted to make certain that I understood myself.

You are shutting yourself off from a world of musical delights with that idea.

Fogvillelad, let me see if i can shed any light.


"My confusion stems primarily from thinking that chord tones should be the principal source for improvising/writing. "

That's one way to think of it. And using modes can be a way to fill in the notes in-between the chord tones.

Another way of thinking is that all the notes of the mode are chord tones of a big, extended chord. So the lydian mode can be the equivalent of an Fmaj13(#11) chord: F A C E G B D. Or you can just call it an F maj7 chord and let the player use their discretion.

You discovered that without the #11, we get a chord that includes all the notes of the major scale. Your F maj7 was F A C E G Bb D. You probably wont hear many people treating that Bb as a chord tone over a major chord because it tends to clash with the A. That's why lydian is often preferred by jazz players.

You asked about minor: F dorian and F aeolian both describe minor chords. Dorian is often preferred because the natural 6 (D) sounds better than the b6 (Db) when treated as a chord tone.


um... does that make sense?

So, wavelength, do you think you'd hear the difference if one played the C major scale vs. the F Lydian scale over Fmaj7?

Quote-

“I wouldn't get too caught up in the "play-this-mode-over-this-chord" nonsense - most of the people who promote this way of thinking are fooling themselves” - Harmosis

Harmosis. I have been away from the boards for a while but remember you to be a knowledgeable and trustworthy theorist and music historian from past posts. Because of this, I am disappointed to read this pejorative and uninformed comment that you made here.

First of all, if there is a misunderstanding of the use of the term “mode” as it is typically used in jazz circles today (to which the original poster referred), taking him back to the Greek modes certainly does not clear things up. The Greek modes are very confusing and even the two foremost 16th Century Theorists Zarlino and Glareanus disagreed as to their content, meanings, and names. My studies have lead me to conclude that Greek theoretical understanding and performance practice were largely regional and constantly in the process of flux. In other words, there is no one Greek modal theory. The church modes are a better place to begin, although the hypo/plagal versions just muddy the waters for the average person today who doesn’t really interact with that repertory.

The term “mode” is in common use today in a purely tonal harmonic context, especially within the jazz community. Yes there is a clear historical difference between tonality and modality, but in modern jazz training, the term “modes” is commonly employed interchangeably with “scales” without conflict. Their historical context notwithstanding, modes might be understood as derivations of a parent scale, and as such, scales themselves. I think that the best place to begin teaching a new concept is taking something that the student already knows and just expanding on it. In this case, the application would be the major and minor scales. Demonstrating how that the pure minor scale is just the 6th mode of the major scale introduces modes in a clear and relevant way. Once the concept is grasped, discovering the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. modes is a simple task for the beginner. All that is left is to give them names (which were already mentioned in this thread- for others following along). And not only do we as Jazz educators teach certain scales (or modes) to be played over certain chords (thus intermingling “modality” and “tonality”), there are pieces in the standard Jazz repertory that are clearly melodically modal while all the while tonal in that they employ functional harmony. One example would be “Footprints” by Wayne Shorter. This piece is in the Dorian mode melodically but the harmony is a complex (yet functional) c minor blues. Yes, modality and tonality coexist today and it can get a bit confusing for the beginner if not taught correctly.

The argument you made that culminated in the quote that I introduced above assumes that chords within a jazz piece generally maintain the pitch collection of the parent scale from which the tune is derived (i.e. the I chord). The fact is, this is almost never true. Even in cases where it is true however (early jazz for example) the argument falls down. Yes, all of the chords in any key (when unaltered) are derived from a common pitch collection. The C diatonic major scale, for example, produces the I (CEG), ii (DFA), iii (EGB), IV (FAC), V (GBD), vi (ACE), and viio (BDF) chords, but as a jazz improviser, the difference in how each of these chords is treated is one of emphasis. Let’s take the example of improvising over the V7 chord in the key of C (GBDF). Basing the improvised melody on the parent scale (C major), one would naturally emphasize the CEG of the scale in which they were thinking. Trust me, I know this from experience. I am a jazz trumpet player and past high school jazz band director and have taught many, many high school kids how to improvise. It may be a simpler approach to things (reducing many chords to one parent scale, or common collection of pitches) but results in very awkward sounding improvised melodies. In the example above, a student would likely emphasize the note C over the V7 (GBDF) and would sound terrible due to the clash of the C with the third of the chord actually sounding. For this reason, I tell them to play G Mixolydian and it automatically sounds better. Yes the same pitch collection, but a difference in which notes are naturally emphasized which results in a huge difference in sound. This is the same reason that the Ionian mode sounds drastically different than, say, the Dorian mode. It’s how the notes are emphasized (both by elongation and metric accent).

The above example shows very simple chords and ones in which are rarely used in jazz without extensions or alterations. It suffices to show, however, that even in that simple diatonic context, thinking only of one scale will produce some very amateur sounding improvisations at best. What about even more realistic examples of jazz music in which many chords within the piece are not in exact compliance with the parent scale?

One example is the 12-bar Blues. The “A” section in its most watered down form is 1 bar of I7, one bar of IV7, and two bars of I7 again. (I7,IV7,I7,I7). Interesting here is that the I chord is dominant in quality, which of course gives it its characteristic sound. Consequently, the major scale (or Ionian mode if you prefer) does not work. The sound (assuming no alterations) is Mixolydian. So in C Blues, I might begin with the C mixolydian mode to draw out melodic ideas. Immediately though the IV7 chord comes and if I continue in this collection of pitches from the I7 chord, I will miss the essential feature of the harmonic progression. One note changes- the E turns to Eb in the IV7 chord. I therefore must switch to the F Mixolydian temporarily to highlight that, as I will do in the B section (2nd four bars) of the blues progression as well.

Another example is the bridge to “I Got Rhythm.” Literally hundreds of jazz composers have written original melodies based on this progression and any improviser worth his salt better know how to improvise over it. The Bridge is a iii-vi-ii-V “turnaround,” but the chords are altered to major-minor7ths (dominant quality) resulting in III7-VI7-II7-V7. Functionally, they are all secondary dominants and to improvise over them with only the parent scale (whatever the key of I is) will lead to many strange sounding melodic ideas. To improvise effectively over this progression, one must treat each chord as a separate mode. If the chords are treated in their simplest forms (without altering the 5ths or 9ths), the Mixolydian mode (reckoned from the root of each chord) should be employed. For example, in the key of Bb, the Bridge is D7-G7-C7-F7 which leads back to the A section beginning on Bb (I). In that key, over the bridge I might draw melodic ideas from D Mixolydian, G Mixolydian, C Mixolydian, and F Mixolydian. Playing only from the Bb scale there simply does not work. One must employ the “play this mode over that chord” approach which you scorn.

Another common example is the second chord in the tune “Take the A Train” by Billy Strayhorn. The opening chord is a major 7th chord, which is immediately followed by II7b5. In the key of C, the progression is CM7-D7b5. The second chord doesn’t last long (2 bars in cut time), and certainly not long enough to call it a modulation. It is simply an altered secondary dominant in the key of C. To effectively improvise over this chord however, you cannot draw from the parent scale of C major because the notes simply clash. This chord has to be treated as a discrete chord to get the sound of the alteration. In fact, most players play the whole tone scale over this chord. Yes, the “play this mode over this chord is the only way to approach this section of “A Train.” If you have an alternative approach I’d love to hear it.

What about alterations of dominant quality chords (the most common of altered jazz chords)? Modern jazz is saturated with these sounds and they absolutely cannot be improvised over using the pitch collection of the scale implied by the I chord. Here’s a hypothetical but realistic example: CM9-em11-am13- dm7- G7#9,b9- CM9. While the first four chords all are derived from the parent diatonic collection of C Major (although if you just focus on only that you will likely emphasize the wrong notes along the way as demonstrated previously) the penultimate chord must be dealt with separately. It is an altered dominant in the key of C Major, and the altered 9ths produce Ab and A#/Bb (replacing the original A natural). Playing the C scale over this chord will quite simply clash. Not only does the altered dominant preclude using the C Major pitch collection as melodic source material, this particular alteration allows for more than one option of modes/scales from which to draw melodic ideas. One of the most common options for a chord like this is the half/whole diminished scale beginning on G (G,Ab,Bb,B,C#,D,E,F,G). This highlights the #9/b9 and introduces the #11 of the chord as well. Another melodic source for this chord is the Superlocrian mode/scale (from whence I derive my screen name). The notes beginning on G are as follows: G,Ab,Bb,B,C#,D#,F,G. Using this mode draws out the #9/b9 alteration of the original chord, and also introduces the #5/b5 alteration (common in jazz even when chords do not explicitly state for these tones to be altered- part of the “unwritten” code). The point in this example is twofold: First, that the nature of the alteration requires one to leave the parent diatonic scale as a melodic source, and second, that there is more than one option in regard to scales upon which to use in that situation to interact with the chord in one’s improvisation.

I could easily sit here and type all day discussing dozens of examples in which one must employ the “play this mode over this chord” approach but let these suffice to demonstrate my point. It is rare in the jazz repertory to have all the chords stem from a common collection. Even when that is the case, however, thinking only of the parent scale while improvising over the derived chords from that scale will produced emphasized notes that disagree with the chord sounding at any given time. The better approach then is to shift modally for these chords (known as “running the changes”), which will naturally produce an emphasis on the chord tones rather than the non-chord tones. That, after all, is the difference between one chord and another that stem from a common collection. And just as the various diatonic chords are different in character, their implied modes are also different in character. And approaching all of the chords from the “one-scale” perspective produces amateuristic sounding improvised melodies at best.

Also, the jazz repertory rarely utilizes chords in merely a diatonic fashion. There are literally thousands of examples in which the chord progression within a piece contains chords that do not share common tones with the parent scale. This might come about as the result of alterations, chord substitutions, modal borrowing, etc. In these instances, the chords must be treated as discrete chords with inherent modal implications. Often, there is more than one modal choice from which to draw to correctly interact with these chords, and that is the reason that books are published to inform the student of these options. One source is Jamey Aebersold if anyone is following along and wants further info.

Harmosis, as I stated in the beginning, I have found you in the past to be knowledgeable and reliable as a music theorist and historian, but you really need to rethink this. I’m not sure of your jazz background, but the chord-scale relationship is fundamental in Jazz education, and indispensable for anyone wanting to learn how to improvise.

Yes, I teach the "play-this-mode-over-this-chord nonsense,” and I am in no way “fooling” myself, as you so gently put it.

Apologies for the length, but the pejorative comment warranted an informed reply.

Superlocrian – good to have you back.

Pejorative? You’ll have to forgive me if I disagree! Uninformed? In one of the music schools I attended, I was taught jazz improvisation exactly as you described above. I am very familiar with the practice.

I’ll cut to the chase: You missed my point (which I thought was clear enough). I was not arguing that only one pitch collection (i.e., scale) should be used in the context of an harmonic progression, irregardless of any chromatic alterations or additions; nor was I arguing (or “assuming”) that chords within a jazz piece generally maintain the pitch collection of the parent scale from which the tune is derived (the accusation of such is ridiculous). My argument is this: You may play (or think you’re playing) the G Mixolydian scale over a G7 in the key of C major (as in your example above), but that does not place the music in G Mixolydian. You cannot extricate a chord from its tonal context.[/b] The V chord in C major is still in C major; it doesn’t modulate to G Mixolydian. Just as the ii chord is still the ii chord – it also does not constitute a modulation to D Dorian.

I realize the practicality of the terminology usage as you advocate, especially when used in teaching, but it’s a double-edged sword. A student may be helped in choosing the “correct” notes by being told to play Mixolydian over the V chord, but the student must also be made aware that the music does not actually modulate to the Mixolydian tonality (modality) just because the V chord occurs.

The occurrence of an altered chord doesn’t constitute a modulation either. Say, you play a whole tone scale (which is not a mode and is beyond the scope of the original discussion) over a dom7b5 - it doesn’t get lost in the context of the overall tonality, nor does it overpower it; it simply adds color to the existing tonality.

I think the basic question is whether you think of modes as scales or as, well, modes. Again I don’t disregard the usefulness of simply naming scales, but people need to understand what a mode really is (by that, I mean some grasp of the historical usage and why it called a "mode"). I hope I've clarified my position, and I would be happy to discuss further.

Again, good to have you back.

No I don’t think I missed your point at all. You were very clear and summed it up elegantly when you stated, “I wouldn't get too caught up in the ‘play-this-mode-over-this-chord’ nonsense - most of the people who promote this way of thinking are fooling themselves.” And it is to that statement I was responding. Perhaps I was being oversensitive for taking that as a pejorative statement as I’m sure you meant it in the nicest of ways.

Based on your response, however, I’m willing to recant the “uninformed” label, but I’m keeping “misinformed” on the back burner pending your response to a few questions.

1. How do you approach the bridge to Rhythm changes, i.e., what scale/mode do you draw from on each chord?

2. How do you approach the A section to Satin Doll?

3. How do you approach Autumn Leaves?


There are obviously hundreds of examples from which to choose, but your answers to these questions will give me an idea of where you are coming from.

BTW- I wouldn’t say I’m “back” per se. More like sticking my head in the door to look around temporarily. Your comment just took me by surprise and I could not let it go.

Well, you're going to have to consider the context in which I made that statement if we're going to continue here. It seems like you're just being evasive.

Well, this response tells me that you did miss my point. It doesn't matter what scale you play over any given chord. It doesn't necessarily constitute a modulation. Just like if you throw in a V7/V as a pre-dominant chord, it doesn't mean that a modulation to V took place, it's simply another pre-dominant chord (altered ii chord, if you like). Any piece of music, if it's tonal, will have a tonal center, and that tonal center is not lost just because you throw in some chromaticism. How may different ways do I need to say this? My Real Book is in box somewhere but I believe "Satin Doll" is in C major.

Harmosis. I have reread my posts and it seems that I have been overly harsh. As a Christian, this is not the way I like to debate and I seek your forgiveness as well as those following along. I will attempt to be direct without being offensive as we continue.

To your overall point- No, I have not missed it. No one is disputing here that if music is tonal, the chords within the progression relate to the tonic in some way. The problems with your argumentation do not lie primarily in your overall explanation of a pervasive tonality (although the Jazz literature presents special problems with which I might draw your attention if we continue- problems that might even cause you to rethink your overall point a bit). My primary concern here is not in the overall point you attempt to make, but rather in some of the derivative comments that stem from it.

The “play this mode over this chord” approach to which the Wikipedia article was referring to as quoted by the original poster you described as “nonsense”. This tells me how you would not not approach improvisation, but sheds no light on how you would would approach it. And because of this, in my last post I tried to get you to explain how you would improvise over the examples I cited from the basic Jazz repertory. Only after you describe your detailed approach to some of these chord progressions (i.e. how do you make the improvisation agree with the chords and from what source do the notes that you will use derive) will we be able to get to the heart of the matter in which we truly disagree and then I will be able to speak directly to a number of points you have made along the way in this thread.

Since your Real Book is in a box somewhere (lol), I will refer you back to the Bridge to Rhythm changes which I described above somewhere. I discussed how I approach those chords as an improviser and am asking you again- how do you approach them? Please be specific, i.e., how do you make the improvisation agree with the chords and from what source do the notes that you will use derive?

All The Things You Are (Jerome Kern)- same question- here’s the basic changes:

Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | AbM7 | DbM7 | G7 | CM7 |
Cm7 | Fm7 | Bb7 | EbM7 | AbM7 | D7 | GM7 ||

Am7 | D7b9 | GM7| GM7 |
Am7 | B7b9 | EM7 | Ab+ |

Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | AbM7 |
DbM7 | Dbm6 | Ab | Ab dim |
Bbm7 | Eb9 | Ab | Ab |

Again, my apologies for being overly aggressive before. It’s usually not my way.

Anxiously awaiting your detailed and specific approach to these progressions . . .

Sorry. I was trying to learn how to use the "italics" function on the reply form. Some of the words came out twice.

It would be helpful if you would be specific as to the exact comments you refer to here.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll bite - but this is really tangent to my point (more on this later). One possible solution (my scale choices are in bold):

Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | AbM7 | DbM7 | Ab Major[/b]
G7 | CM7 | C major[/b]
Cm7 | Fm7 | Bb7 | EbM7 | AbM7 | Eb major[/b]
D7 | GM7 |Am7 | G major[/b]
D7b9 | D half-whole dim scale[/b]
GM7| GM7 | Am7 | G major (I would start thinking more towards Em at the Am7)[/b]
B7b9 | E harm minor[/b]
EM7 | E major[/b]
Ab+ | Ab whole tone[/b]
Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | AbM7 |DbM7 | Ab major[/b]
Dbm6 | Ab harm major[/b]
Ab | Ab major[/b]
Ab dim | Ab whole-half dim scale[/b]
Bbm7 | Eb9 | Ab | Ab | Ab major[/b]

Of course, I may just play arpeggios on some of these.


Ok, back to this being tangent to my point. Again, I'll state that it doesn't matter what scale you play over what chord (or in our case, rather what you'd call said scale), or what approach you take to improvising. The music is not modal unless it SOUNDS modal, not just because you're playing a Mixolydian scale over a V chord. There's no reason not to keep thinking tonic major scale because the music is still tonal (to I) at the V chord. Yes, you have to be aware of the chord tones, but is that any more difficult than thinking of a different scale? I think not. But my argument is less about the approach to improvisation and more about being aware of what's really going on musically and thinking in that context (regardless of what scales you choose or what you call those scales).

Thanks for playing along . . . now how about the bridge to Rhythm changes in the same manner (also requested in my last two posts)?

Yeah, I'm pretty much done taking requests. I think I've made my point quite clear, so unless you have something specific to discuss, I'm done here.

Harmosis. I’m really not trying to be mean spirited here, but I knew that you would not be able to answer the question re: how to improvise over the bridge to I Got Rhythm. I asked you three separate times to do so and you avoided it each time. The reason is that it forces you to admit that you would play Mixolydian scales over the four different chords (D7-G7-C7-F7 in the key of Bb), and this puts you in direct conflict with the statement you made early on which caused me to reply in the first place. The “play this mode over this chord” approach that you called “nonsense” is the only plausible way to improvise over that section.

The point I was trying to make in the “All the Things You Are” example is that many Jazz standards are in a constant state of modulation, making it difficult to group large key centers together. That piece, although tonal, actually modulates in two measure groupings, and they go by pretty fast.

Let’s wrap this up. You have made the point that chords cannot be taken out of their tonal context. From an analytical perspective, this is not in dispute and never was implied. I agree with you there. Here’s the point- even if a group of chords might stem from a single key (e.g. iii-vi-ii-V7-I), each chord may be treated differently as an improviser to bring out the characteristic sound of each chord and highlight its own chord tones. In the example above, one might choose to play (assuming a key signature of C) E-Phrygian, A-Aeolian, D-Dorian, G-Mixolydian, and C-Major (Ionian) over each of the chords to bring out each chord’s own individual features. This does not imply that the music actually is modulating with each chord and no one ever implied otherwise. And it’s this approach to which the Wikipedia article was referring (referenced by FogVilleLad) which you dismissed as “nonsense.” And it’s this approach that is quite simply the best (and often the only) way to bring out the particular sound of each chord and highlight its chord tones. This is the “play this mode over this chord” approach, and it is quite legitimate, and certainly not “nonsense.”

FogVilleLad- if you are still reading this, I know that it is confusing. In my humble opinion, you do not need to know anything about ancient Greek modes or medieval church modes to completely grasp modern usage of modes. In fact, I was a practicing Jazz musician long before I learned about the past. If music is a part time passion and you are limited in the time to which you can commit, then try to learn what modes are now and how the term is used. Then you can go back and learn about the past as time permits. The past usage will then heighten your understanding. In other words, you don’t have to learn things in order. If you actually do have the time to learn things in order however, that might actually be better, as Harmosis also suggests.

Harmosis. As I stated earlier, I have found you to be knowledgeable and reliable as a music theorist and historian in past posts. I appreciate that you were trying to help the original poster understand modes, but the comment you made was quite simply incorrect. And having beaten this horse to death, I will close and state that I hope we can remain friendly.

No, I actually didn't even look at "I Got Rhythm," or even think about it. But, good example, and your point is well taken.

Well, that's the point I was making: It is nonsense to think that any kind of modality (or other tonality) would be established in this way, especially in a string of dom7 chords, which would actually tend to weaken tonality.

Yes, I understand that (again, I was also taught that at music school). Perhaps my argument was more for semantics and meaning, and not as much against the pragmatic usage you describe here. I still don't agree with that general approach, but I certainly understand why it's used.

Well, if I can voice my opinion, I can't really complain if you do likewise, can I?


superlocrian, I don't think that you are personally fooling yourself, and my comment was not aimed at people like you. I have run into so many jazz musicians who literally think that the tonality/modality changes over just about every chord, as if the music was some kind of mathematical equation and should be analyzed in kind. My comment was aimed at them. There was obviously not enough information posted at the time of my comment for it to be taken in that context. Furthermore, the phrase "most of the people," was too broad (which is certainly one reason that you became incensed), and should been been narrowed to read, "some people." That was carelessness on my part and I do apologize.

If our views differ on the approach to improvisation (and I don't think we're polar opposites here), and perhaps some use of archaic terminology, I'm sure we can both live with that.

And remain friendly, absolutely.

Harmosis, you are a true Gentleman.

Es ist genug.