Modes/scales

I agree about learning the major scale first. Everything follows from that. As far as learning the notes or the shape, you need to know both. The guitar has a steep learning curve and people lern in different ways. my best advice is to learn what you can, however you can. it will all come together on its own time and you'll feel that you've made progress. until then just keep plugging away at it.

Again, I strongly disagree with this for a student who doesn't already know their major scale and the fretboard.

Not because shapes aren't usefull. They are. But because the way you think about your instrument is formed in the first few years you are learning to play. If you think in terms of notes and tones, you will be a better musician than if you think in terms of shapes.

A player who thinks in terms of notes and tones is not constrained by set patterns. A player who thinks in terms of shapes not only is constrained by set patterns, but will be uncertain as to how to transfer a melodic idea from his brain to his fretboard.

it's just that if you learn the scale you'll be learning the shape at the same time.....I find that you don't learn one thing at a time on the guitar. As you move around the fretboard you learn chords, changing chords, how to get around the fretboard physically, what scale you're in, what chords are in the scale, what the notes are, etc. all at the same time. some of it you focus on, some drops out because it's too much info at once, and some of it sticks.

Hey SirChick.

At the moment not a lot is sticking for me haha. It seems obvious everyone has their own method of learning and everyone is different due to the fact that we all play guitar and learn things for different reasons. Since I am without guitar for now :( I am going to cram as much theory into my primitive brain as possible, hopefully this will enlighten me as to what I need to learn and how best to go about it for myself.

Thanks for everyones advice I appreciate it!

it's just that if you learn the scale you'll be learning the shape at the same time.....

Not necessarily true. Well, true, but probably not in the way you think.

Most of my younger students don't realize there are repeating shapes until we get to about position VII. Which means, they've already mastered 2/3rds of the neck while thinking entirely in terms of notes and tones.

My older students only figure out there are shapes because they go on the 'net and screw up the surprise. :)

I try not to teach shapes until they discover at least one for themselves. But with the ubiquitous of that horrible teaching method on the net and in books, it's hard for students to avoid it.

I would guess in terms of tones . . . and I'd suggest that's better than using shapes, but not as good as learning to associate those notes with tones.

Dont forget though modes have their own modes also :) not many people realize this! There are i think 148 modes in total in the entire world of music in all shapes an forms 149 scales in total but the first one is major then the rest you sorta work out from the major. Unless you have quarter tone guitar's which does not exist in western world then there is more than 4 times that.

We have a triple winner in the "I'll pass along some BS I heard somewhere" contest.

1. The reason people don't realize that modes "have their own modes" is because they DON'T have their own modes.

Think it through.

If you look at 'related' modes (i.e., the Phrygian is the major scale starting on the third note), start the Phrygian from the second note. What do you get?

The Lydian mode.

And you get that same Lydian mode if you use the Ionian 4th, the Dorian 3rd, the Aeolian 6th, etc. They're all the same Lydian mode; making a "mode of a mode" gives you nothing new.

2. The 149 number is WAY off.

Let's fix a root for figuring out how many scales there could be. The scale must contain the root, so we're looking for all scales that can be built on "C".

Above C there are 11 half steps. Any of these will either be in the scale or not - so you can express it as a binary number, 2 to the 11th power. That's 2,048.

But a scale must have at least two notes, so we need to subtract one possibility (the binary 00000000000, with no notes except C).

So there can be 2,047 different scales built on C. Most of them won't be very useful, but they will all be unique sets of tones.

3. Using quarter tone guitars doesn't give you four times as many possible scales. Far from it.

Quarter tones allow for 24 half steps to the octave, which allows over 8 MILLION unique interval patterns within an octave. 8,388,607 if you want to be precise about it.

Although you make some fair strong points buts realistically scales with 2 notes.. why would u want to get that pedantic...im mostly considering 7 8 and 5 tone scales. If you know all 2,047 scales .. and play them well im impressed you should probably be considered the smartest musician alive cos i sure as hell could not remember that many. 149 would be a considerable enough to cope with all forms of music of the modern day in my opinion. If needs be i could post the 149 formula scales of the ones i know of. If any one is interested at all.

To also add with my modes have modes.. i have had this argument with over 100s of people, yet alot have also said " i have heard about this but don't know much about it", well its out there. i'm sticking with my story though you make a strong point on your side of things so let the people decide.. but perhaps don't read my quote quite so literally and you might understand what I'm on about. "Although the old put your money where your mouth is" quote is probably going to be the next thing you say, there is no way of persuading you in any shape or form. But i don't mean quite literally modes have their own modes but you can pretend that they do which makes theory 10 times easier to understand how to change keys from majors to harmonic etc etc without really much though, as once said Google around you should find it.
I know Kris on msn so i will still explain it to him eventually, but thats all i have to say on this subject. Wont elaborate to avoid arguments. Most people when i teach them some stuff i just get angry snaps back instead of a slightly more debatable conversation.

I even have a quote in one of my books from the early 90ies that even says that "to some degree modes can have their own modes, but so few know of it as the knowledge of theory can decrease imagination of theory itself". Do some research you might find some thing on it. But doubtful cos most people have the same thought as you.

There are things like the Hypo- modes, which move them five notes higher using the same interval pattern, but at some stage you've got to stop and say "Wait a minute - I want to play the guitar". At that point, it can all wait.

There are some scales with just two notes - originating from east asian countries. They have their uses, maybe not in western classical music but they do have their uses. Noteboat is spot on - sit down and work out the numbers with a pencil and paper.

I don't have the time to figure it all through - the bills have to be paid. I can play any two-octave scale in any key, any two octave arpeggio, and a few three octave specials too. What the heck - a paying audience isn't going to sit there and listen to me playing scales; they come to be entertained, they come to feel something. Sooner or later you've got to let go of learning scales and play some songs/ tunes/ sonatas/ anything but scales.

A :-)

Oh, I'll keep an open mind, SirChick. But if you throw out half-baked statements, you should expect to be challenged on them. (By the way, it's really hard to not take you literally when you include an exact number).

If you restrict 'scale' to be sets of 5 or more tones, there aren't as many possibilities. But not so few as you think.

Start with that 2,047 number. There are only 11 tones other than C, so there are only 11 possible 2 note scales. Cross them off the list, you've got 2,036.

Now things start getting trickier. With a 3 note scale, you can have the first note over the tonic in any of ten positions. If it's in the tenth, the second note must be in the 11th (1 possibility); if it's in the 9th, you have 2 choices, and so on. So for 3 note scales we've got 55 possibilities. That leaves 1,981.

Next eliminate the 4 note scales. Tone 1 is still fixed; tone 2 can take any of 9 positions, and so on. By my quick figuring, that's 504 - leaving 1,477 scales of five or more notes, or roughly 10 times what you'd stated.

Even if you're talking diatonic scales, your number is too low. If you start from C, the second note could be Db, D, or D#; the third could be Eb, E, or E#, and so on. Tones 2-6 have 3 possibilities, and tone 7 has two (because a #7 is the same as the tonic). That's 486 scales - although there's some overlap, since a scale with D# as the second tone can't have Eb as the third, and so on. I'm not going to bother doing all the calculations, but the number of diatonic scale possibilities is at least double your number.

I also have no problem doing research. I Googled "modes of modes", and I did in fact learn something new - Isaac Beeckman proposed the idea in the early 1600s; it's an interesting idea... but it has nothing at all to do with scales (it's about intonation - how the internal relationships of the same mode will behave differently in various temperaments. Oh, and Beeckman had 126 modes - 7 modes with 18 different temperament adjustments for each)

All of the other "modes of modes" websites dealt with "derivations" of modes - the modes of the harmonic minor, etc. Since the starting point isn't actually one of the modes, but some altered scale, it only confuses the issue more. The better written websites on this topic do point out that they're not really "modes of modes"; the rest don't bother with that fine detail. By the way, if you want to double-check, "modes of modes" brings up 147,000 results - I suggest you combine the search with other terms, like 'music', 'guitar', 'scales' or other terms to get a manageable set. I used about a dozen different terms.

My opinion, based on years of study and teaching: modes don't simplify theory; they complicate it. Modes are not 'related' to other modes - that's just a coincidence discovered by Glareanus in the 1500s.

But maybe I'm missing something. So far, you've thrown out things you've heard and sorta remembered, and challenged me to prove it to myself. Not exactly helpful.

So yeah... put your money where your mouth is :)

Seriously. Enlighten me. I like to learn new stuff.

My opinion, based on years of study and teaching: modes don't simplify theory; they complicate it. Modes are not 'related' to other modes - that's just a coincidence discovered by Glareanus in the 1500s.

Not only do modes complicate theory, it's really rare that modes are used by other musicians anywhere close to the way guitarists use them.

That is not because guitarists have a unique instrument with specific needs, either. It is because most guitarists do not in fact understand the theory of modes and have made up a body of explanatory material that is simply counter to what every other musician out there learns of musical theory.

Now, alternate, instrument specific theories aren't bad and might sometimes be necessary -- but they are of little utility when trying to convey a musical idea to someone who plays any other instrument.

Modes aren't necessary in any modern genres except some forms of jazz. In orchestral music, they tend to stop being really all that useful from the romantic period forward. I'll repeat, unless you are playing in a genre that requires modes, learning them serves to create confusion without purpose. It's complication for complications sake.

Learn the major scale and how to alter the major scale, and you can do everything you need to do as a guitarist, and the theory is a lot simpler.

To also add with my modes have modes.. i have had this argument with over 100s of people, yet alot have also said " i have heard about this but don't know much about it", well its out there.

I was trying to figure out what you meant by "modes of modes". It's obviously not just making new modes by starting on the various notes of the modes. As NoteBoat pointed out, that would bring nothing new at all. Every new mode of a mode would be identical to another mode. Mode 2 of D Dorian would be indistinguishable from E phrygian, etc.

So maybe you were talking about the so called plagal, or 'hypo' modes as Alan mentioned?

The plagal modes were versions of the original 'authentic' modes extended, or rather, shifted down, a fourth, hence the term 'hypo' meaning 'under'. Whereas F Lydian consists of notes FGABCDEF, F Hypolydian consisted of CDEFGABC.
Despite appearances, that's not the C major scale or Ionian mode, because the mode final (equivalent of today's key centre) is still F.
Plagal modes were a medieval means of extending the pitch range of the authentic modes and the plainchant melodies that modes were designed for in the first place. Plagal modes have no relevance in today's music which is now limitless in pitch range.

Firstly my views on modes is the one thing i find fascinating. I find it like a hall of mirrors... where 2 completely different modes can be the same in one go as that person mentioned about Dorian and Phrygian in different keys.

Now with the modes having modes its merely a statement to ponder because the way i learn formulas i always derived it from the major.

The enigmatic modes for example if we take mode 2 of enigmatic, i dont think it has a specific name so just Mode II will do, the formula is :
1 - #2 - #3 - ##4 - ##5- #6- 7

now if you look at that then put that with the major scale formula over it :

1__2__3__4___5_____6_______7_1 -Major
_1___#2___#3__##4___##5_#6_7 -Enigmatic Mode II

Well im hoping these line up now when i had posted this cos its bit awkward.. but you should notice the 3rd of the major and #2 of the Enigmatic Mode II are the same, though different formula its the same non the less same also for #6 of Enigmatic Mode II and the 7th of the Major, now for me by learning the principal of modes have modes and everything comes from the major, it has allowed me to easily go between keys as i had learnt it in this manner from the start. So basically if i hit the 3rd of the major I'm also on the #2 of the Enigmatic II you played a 3 and 7 drone of the major, its not a chord cos a chord needs 3 notes remember you can change key. This is how i have seen modes and will be how i think whilst i write music, if i want the song go a certain way i need to know what options i got based from the major. So my modes on modes quote is merely something to ponder upon. Every one learns music differently and individually but if you all get the same results why should there be such a term as "BS as it was called.
Though i do admit my maths is bad when it came to figuring out that total number of scales hehe !

But i feel there is one more thing that is more complex than modes but that could just be me and that is using formulas for polychords, ive not looked into it alot yet so that could be why i'm finding it difficult. All ive managed to work out is a common method of working out the desired chord which is the 3 or 4 tone chord over the root at the interval, if that makes sense ?

I not read all this yet as it late and my brain is non existant at the moment, but I think it's safe to asume we are out of the beginners relm now lol

just learn the scale and the notes like KP said!

Yep Kr1s, the beginners have left the building :)

Ok, SirChick, you've explained yourself. By the way, I've been discussing this from the very beginning – I didn't flame you in my post; I simply showed you were perpetuating things that were not true. At first you did it without any real explanation, which left me guessing you hadn't thought about it at all.

Now that you've explained yourself, I can see I was wrong - you've clearly done a lot of thinking about this. It's also a lot of thinking that you didn't have to do, because approaching this from a traditional theory standpoint rather than modes would have saved you a lot of effort.

For the benefit of others, I'll start by recapping the enigmatic scale. It's not commonly used, so it's best to define it: C-Db-E-F#-G#-A#-B-C. 1-b2-3-#4-#5-#6-7 (I know you'd stated that, but it sometimes helps to see the letter names too)

Now if you want to use different notes from the tone set as the tonal center, you can make seven different ‘modes' from it. But they're not “modes of modes” – they're modes of the enigmatic scale.

Starting from the second degree you'd have Db-E-F#-G#-A#-B-C-Db. 1-b2-x3-x4-x5-#6-7. By the way, there is an accepted name for that, and you guessed it right – it's Enigmatic II.

Yes, the 2nd note is identical to the 3rd note of the major scale. But that's where the relationship ends – because the enigmatic scale is not a mode of the major scale. What you're doing is a modulation by pitch axis, a concept that doesn't need “modes” at all.

In fact, you can use this technique to change between ANY scale and any other scale. If you're working with a diatonic scale, there MUST be at least one tone in common with any other diatonic scale.

Take the C major scale: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. Now take the most remote major scale from that… which would be F# or Gb. F# is F#-G#-A#-B-C#-D#-E#-F#. B is the common tone. If you chose the key of C#, you'd end up with two common tones: E# (enharmonic to F) and B# (enharmonic to C).

It's simple math – if you have 12 chromatic tones, you cannot pick a set of 7 that doesn't overlap any other set of 7 somewhere. In fact, every tone in the scale is going to appear in six other scales of the same structure, as well as numerous scales of other interval structures. Sticking with major scales, the note ‘C' will be the 2nd in Bb, the 3rd in Ab, the 4th in G, the 5th in F, the 6th in Eb, and the 7th in Db.

The concept of changing keys using a pitch axis was developed nearly a century ago by Bela Bartok. Feel free to Google it and bone up – but if you do, be sure to exclude “Satriani” from the results. He's taken Bartok's concept and greatly distorted it (creating a very simplistic view that DOES involve “modes”, and is far less useful for composers than Bartok's!).

Modes really have nothing to do with modulation by pitch axis. If you're thinking “I'm on the third in C, and that's the same as the second in Db enigmatic, so I'll change here” you aren't using a mode. You're changing keys from C to Db, and you're changing scales from major to enigmatic. If you retain E as the tonal center after the key change, you're in the Enigmatic II. At no time is one scale a “mode” of the other – they simply share a common intercepting point. The fact that your ultimate scale is Enignmatic II rather than Enigmatic isn't a use of modes either - a scale is a scale (to be really precise about it, "mode" and "scale" are actually identical terms; mode is Greek, scale is Latin - they both mean the same thing prior to Glareanus. But to talk about 'modality' is to talk about changes in tonal center, not changes in tonality - tonality being the resource set of tones used at the moment.)

If you're working with scales of fewer than seven tones, you can have tonal sets (scales) that don't overlap anywhere. These are called “combinatorial” sets, because they can be combined without duplicating any tones - two combinatorial hexachords form a chromatic scale when taken together. At this point we get into the set theory of Dr. Alan Forte… interval class vectors, etc. But modes don't apply there either.

By the way, there is no shortcut for working out polychords. Polychords are defined as two chords overlapping, and chords don't appear in isolation. Each chord will be part of a progression; the progression determines the chord name; the chord names determine the polychord.

Because they are the result of parallel harmonies, you can't really examine polychords in isolation.

Let's say you have a chord A-C-E-G-B-D. Even if the 'top' chord is clearly a G triad, is the 'bottom' chord Am or C6? The answer depends on the progression, not the collection of notes.

A note from your friendly moderator -- please avoid profanity. We're a family-friendly site. Thanks.