Does this have anything to do with one another?

I'm just trying to draw lines that probably isn't there. LOL. Check out the underlined below:

To make a C7, you flatten the 7th of the major scale.

On the flip side...

To make a harmonic minor you raise the 7th of the minor scale.

C D E F G A Bb <--- What's this scale called. C Mixolydian?

C D Eb F G Ab B < C harmonic minor

Since I'm thinking - NO. Can someone explain why we flatten the 7th note in a C7 chord for example. :lol:

First up - welcome to Guitarnoise.

To make a harmonic minor -> almost. The 7th of the harmonic minor scale is one semitone below the tonic (B->C, G#->A) to conform to the Leading Note principle from major scale theory

C Mixolydian? -> Yes

C harmonic minor - correct; and the same going down.

And the main one - to make a C7 -> C7 is the dominant chord in the key of F major, which has a flattened B (the key signature for F Major has one flat), so C7 is built from notes in the F major scale - F, G, A, Bb, C, D, E, F - not notes from the C major scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, B(natural), C). It's a common mistake to treat C7 as a chord in the key of C. CMaj7 is in the key of C - using the notes C, E, G, B.

Best,

A :-)

To expand this a bit.

Taking the C Major scale and harmonizing it out to 7ths we get:

C D E F G A B

I - C maj7 (1, 3, 5, 7 C E G B)
ii - D min7 (1, b3, 5, b7 D F A C)
iii - E min7 (1, b3, 5, b7 E G B D)
IV - F maj7 (1, 3, 5, 7 F A C E)
V - G7 (1, 3, 5, b7 G B D F)
iv - A min7 (1, b3, 5, b7 A C E G)
vii - B m7b5 (1, b3, b5, b7 B D F A)

To answer a PM I got ...

the vii is NOT a diminished 7th.

dim7 is 1 b3 b5 bb7 (B D F Ab)

The chord built from harmonizing the major scale doesn't have the double-flat 7th. It's sometimes called a "half-diminished" chord. But is most often called m7b5.

You've fallen into the trap of describing a Dm chord as being 1, b3, 5, too, when it's actually 1, 3, 5 starting from D in the key of C (and so on with Em, G7, Bdim).

I'm not trying to beat you up if doing it this way helps you remember how to build your chords, I just feel that a lot of absolute beginners read these threads and they should be taught that building chords is basically a matter of using every other note working up from the root rather than flattening a note from a different major scale when they change the root note.

Example:

Scale of C Major C D E F G A B C

Chord uses 1, 3 and 5 counting the root as 1

so, a chord of C is built from C (1st note) E (3rd note) and G (5th)

then Dm is built from D (1st note) F (3rd) and A (5th)

and G7 is built from G (1st) B (3rd) D (5th) and F (7th).

Which, to me at least, is a lot easier; but each to their own.

Cheers,

A :-)

Alan, I'd counter that your method is actually more complicated, not less.

Now, instead of having to know one scale (the major scale) I need to know multiple scales, and know them in multiple keys.

I have to know G mixolydian, and when to use it versus when G Aeolian versus when to use B Locrian and when to use that, versus whatever else happens to get tossed into the mix.

You think it's easier to know 7 modes and when to use them.

I think it's easier to know 1 scale and compare the note that I'm using versus what occurs in the scale.

*shrug*

Yes, the Dorian chord is Dmin (in C), which consists of the 2nd, 4th and 6th degrees of the scale, but that translates into a minor chord (because of the interval between the 2nd and 4th degrees being minor).
Where I see the difficulty, for a beginner, is in the "......when it's actually 1, 3, 5 starting from D in the key of C (and so on with Em, G7, Bdim)". I understand it, because that's how I learnt it and, as far as I'm concerned they are irrevocably linked to their modes(modes), but I think a beginner would start to get confused by 1, 3, 5 starting at D in C, when the result is 1, 3b, 5.

I've tried teaching/playing with modes. I found that so many people didn't know what they were doing that I just abandoned the whole idea of using them.

I don't, in general see the utiltiy or advantage.

I know that it's the Berkeley way, but frankly, to use modes well you have to think of them as alterations of the major scale anyway (and most people don't), and that brings you right back to what I'm doing to begin with.

I have no problems teaching this to my students. I have an 8 year old student who grasps it very well.

Moreover, in my mind when you learn this way, as opossed to modes, it provides a smoother transition to chromaticism because then scale alterations that happen for a measure or two can be talked about as just another alteration as a basic scale. Take two students, one who has been thinking in terms of altering scales since they started working on theory and one who was taught in terms of modes, and the student who is used to altering scales will make the jump to chromaticism easier than the student who thinks in terms of different scales. At least in my experience.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and to each there own. However, I think that the Berkeley line, in this case, is increasing complexity without increasing utility, and I see no advantage to it.

I learnt modes and the "modal chords" (wrong name , but that's how I see them) backwards - I moved to modal constructions, via the "modal chords", through looking at where they came from. So I regard modes as modified scales, rather than anything else - and still have no real use for them.

Don't beat me - that's just how I find it easier

A :-)

Not trying to beat you up, Alan. Just explaining why I don't agree with you and why I don't believe I've "fallen for [a] trap."