Thank you for giving me some music to listen to and some new things to study and incorporate into my composition.

Thanks, mate. Yeah, this is just my introduction to 'modality' where I just wanted to introduce the concept and how it differs from 'tonality'. Consequently it is oversimplified. My follow up video (which can be found here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8hgeKmo376tdaM.html ) goes into much more detail and explains character tones, modal cadences, and much else to do with modal harmony.

Matt Burns Hey, man. Thanks for your post, which I did find enlightening...But mostly thanks because without it "walk that bass" (which I have only recently discovered) would not have responded with a link to his more in depth lesson on modality.

Walk That Bass I only just discovered your channel as I am new to music theory in general (and guitar) and was seeking to deepen my understanding of modality as not at all satisfied with the use of the term "modal" in many KZfaq guitar tutorials to describing a "modal chord progression" as being achieved by simply substituting a chord diatonic to the key in place of its tonic chord, thereby establishing a new tonal center, different than the key's tonal center. Though new to music theory, I have geeked-out on it over this first year of my guitaristic journey and having just recently starting seriously exploring the concept and uses of modality, these guitar tutorials really don't sit right with me on a gut level...I am much more inclined to believe what the guy posted above (Matt Burns) is correct and am so glad he posted his comment because I might have missed your more in depth video had you not felt compelled to reply with a link to it.

You said, "This works with any two adjacent triads". Adjacent by whole tone or semitone? And major or minor (or diminished) triads?

@@puffinwrangler7557 He explains that the triads are are the two major tones taken from the relative major scale to whatever mode you're playing in, which would be the VI and the V chord of that major scale. This means that these triads are a whole step apart.

Thanks, Albert :)

Thanks Greig. Glad it helped. Not to self-promote too much, but check out my other video on Modal Jazz (further in this playlist). I go into far more detail about what Modal Jazz is and why it was created (rather than what it is NOT - which is what I do in this video).

Thanks, Mahram! Glad it helped :)

No worries, Ian. Thanks for the comment.

Thanks, Lucas.

My pleasure. Glad to hear it :)

Glad to hear it. Here's a bit more to Modal Jazz than what I covered here, but I'll cover that in more depth in a future vid :)

No worries, aneros988. Thanks for the comment.

Yep, exactly. Jazz from the late 1950's onward started moving away from the tonal II-V-I type progression and doing more 'out there' stuff. Thanks for the comment, Richard.

Thanks, man.

Thanks :) Glad to hear it. Yeah I try to keep things as simple as possible, if I can.

Thanks, mate :)

Thanks Peter.

Thanks, kokorodokoro. Let me know if you have any questions as you go.

No worries. Thanks for the comment, Kubulu.

Thanks, Scott :)

Thanks, John.

No worries, Madani.

Glad you like them. Just as an aside, there's a bit more to modal jazz than what I covered here. This was just an intro. Thanks for the thumbs up.

Thanks, Jamie. I'll try not to disappoint :)

Thanks, mate. Too kind :)

No worries.

Thanks, Matt. Haha, that's not my area of expertise, but maybe I can expand this channel to a Jazz/Renaissance music channel :)

Didn't see the channel name lol

Cheers, Jack.

Cheers, Oliver. The song that comes immediately to mind is Coltrane's 'My Favorite Things'. The actual melody sounds quite tonal but all the solos in-between the melody are completely modal. This whole album has Coltrane on the cusp between his earlier tonal stuff and his later modal (and even later free) jazz stuff. Other songs on that album have a similar tension between tonality and modality - like the song Summertime. There's a whole bunch of modal improvisation which just floats around and then suddenly you hear a very recognisable and decisive V-I perfect cadence.

+Walk That Bass awesome! I'll check out those recommendations. Really interesting concepts! Mind boggling to think of the genius of such musicians.

Thanks, Steve. Yeah, I try to over-enunciate my words in these video (I'm Australian so have a tendency to slur words - 'gotta'/'wanna' instead of 'got to'/'want to'. I do this because many of my viewers from various countries only speak English as their second language. Because of this I've realised I do have a tendency to over-emphasise my voice. But noted, will try restrain myself in future videos :)

It sounded more to me that you were recording in a very reverberant acoustic, and it was making your voice sound harder and toppier than it would be in a more forgiving, absorbent setting. This could come across as 'shouting'. Maybe you could tame this with a little EQ - tame the treble and emphasise the mids a little more? Just a suggestion - the content is fine.

Sounds like volume dynamics compression has occurred Try reducing the sensitivity of the mic to avoid that 'blaring' effect.

Oh, excellent content, by the way, Walk That Bass. I'll be returning for more.

Walk That Bass I actually like how you speak loudly.

It's definitely a Jazz thing. Jazz using 7th chords as its basic chord, unlike Classical which uses triads. This is a Jazz channel so I talk about things from a Jazz perspective. Plus the pull of the dominant 7th chord (which has a tritone between the 3rd and 7th) to the tonic is far greater, in my opinion, than just the dominant triad. But it's just a different genre and therefore a slightly different approach.

Thanks for the reply! I don't know much about the elements of jazz music (that's why I'm watching these videos), so I'm glad you could clarify me that. I also agree with you about the dominant 7th chord, but as the only exception of what I've stated earlier. I still think that an approach to functions using 7th chords is unnecessarily more complex, but it's fine if it works for you.

If you don't play the 7 (at least in the V dominant) you don't get a tritone

I would argue that the 7th is always implied, even when it is not being played.

On what possible basis?

I think you pretty much answered the question there. Everyone's used to those modes that they're pretty stale really. When people talk about Major or Minor songs in popular music it's Ionian and Aeolian, the other modes rarely get consideration.

❤

Was just thinking the same thing!

Yep, it is. The III chord is essentially just a rootless I9 chord. Em7 = E G B D CMaj9 = C E G B D Rootless CMaj9 = E G B D Has almost all the same notes with an available tension (the 9th) so it generally sounds quite 'tonic' like, especially when played after a V7 chord. So like: G7 Em7

Hey, mate. Sorry for the late reply. So from a Jazz perspective, I personally like the following book for Jazz Harmony (including tonal harmony): The Chord Scale Theory & Jazz Harmony ~ Barrie Nettles & Richard Graf It does touch on modal and non-functional harmony as well but the bulk of the book in on Tonal Harmony - and it covers it quite well with topics like modal interchange and secondary dominants and such.

Cheers, Fil. Yep, in the next video in this playlist - on Modal Jazz - I cover exactly that. I chose not to cover it here, because I really wanted to stress the key differences between tonal and modal harmony - and talking about modal chord 'functions' I feel would have just confused the matter. In the follow up video, I do explain character tones, modal 'function' and modal cadences - stressing that the 'pull' to the tonic is no where near as strong as in tonal/functional harmony. Thanks for the comment :)

Walk That Bass oh okay I see, it makes sense to avoid cramming all that information in just one introductory video. I will watch the following video then :)

Thanks, mate. Yeah, I had the same problem, thus this channel (Y)

He actually talks about precisely this in his next vid on modal jazz: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8hgeKmo376tdaM.html

Nup. You can create a tonal centre with non-functional harmony through means other than a V-I cadence, like by using a pedal point. Repeating a note (especially in the bass) causes us to perceive it as the tonal centre. Have a listen to 'So What' by Miles Davis. This is a Modal Jazz song in D Dorian (Part B is in Eb Dorian) that uses a bass ostinato pattern to emphasise the note D, which creates a clear tonal centre.

Very few pop artists use modal harmony (precisely because it is unusual and ambiguous). You're not generally going to hear a modal pop song on the radio these days. It's hard to make a modal song sound 'catchy'. V-I cadences are generally the 'catchiest' progression you can play. However, there are some examples of modal pop songs, generally from classic super-bands. The Beatles have some. Have a listen to: Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus, and Strawberry Field Forever. The underlying chord progressions on these songs generally float about and don't resolve with a perfect cadence. It's sometimes hard to spot the tonic in these songs, especially on I am the Walrus. There's a reason The Beatles are so famous!

Walk That Bass Interesting. I read that Beatles didnt even know music theory. Crazy!

Could you elaborate further on that? I know Eleanor rigby for example is Dorian, but there is a clear resolution with triadic chords, it's just a vi-I resolution - does that mean that any song that isn't really a V-I resolution can be defined as modal? As for the other two songs, it certainly doesn't sound like the notes have an equal hierarchy, just again that it resolves in different way - indeed, there are also a lot of modulations, which I enjoy. In the same sense, there was quite a bit of latin/afro-cuban jazz before Kind of blue which was in a dorian mode, but no one really calls that music modal (or maybe they do?) so I'm confused now. Not trying to contradict you by the way - I love your work and have learned a lot from this channel - I just felt I completely understood what separated modal music from tonal music until that point and would lie to break the overthinking.

No, these are all good questions/points. So it's always hard when talking in generalities. You inevitably have to make generalisations. The line between modal and tonal isn't completely clear cut. There are some songs that are clearly tonal ("Happy Birthday") and there are some songs that are clearly modal ("So What"). And then there is a big grey area in the middle. Many songs have both tonal and modal qualities. "My Favorite Things" and "Chim Chim Cheree" by Coltrane - These have modal chord progressions but tonal melodies (i.e. the melody sounds like it's resolving with a V-I but then the solos are completely modal). Complicating this is the fact that modal harmony still has a tonal centre (and tonic chord) and use 'modal cadences' (and so therefore resolve to the tonic) and has 'character tones' (so not all notes are actually equal). So a IV-i plagal cadence in the dorian mode is a 'modal cadence' that resolves to the I chord. This is because the IV chord contains the modes character tone. I go over this in detail in the next video in the series on Modal Jazz. You can check it out here if you like: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8hgeKmo376tdaM.html I chose to oversimplify it here slightly as I was only meaning to introduce the idea of modality. I expand on it in the next video. So, unfortunately, it's not black and white. But as very general rule - if a song doesn't use V-I perfect cadences, it is 'modal' in some sense. For example, Bill Evan's "Time Remembered" has an explicit chord progression that intentionally excludes all dominant chords - and is therefore considered 'modal'. (I plan to make a video on this in the future). Apologies for the wishy-washy answer, but when you start getting into the nitty-gritty detail of any subject, you tend to find countless complications. Music Theory is no different. So in that sense, you could arguable say that Afro-Cuban Jazz or even a John Lee Hooker style one chord blues is 'modal'. It's a fuzzy concept. And this is mostly because historical (Renaissance) modal music didn't really use chords - but rather used counterpoint/polyphony. So imposing chords onto modality was always going to be a little bit foreign. Hope that made sense.

I have a question somehow related.It's often written harmonic functions as such T = I iii vi SD = II IV D = V VII How about in minor key?

Thanks Bebop review. So a couple of points: 1. Yes, modal music is ancient and is older than tonality. But, as you'd no doubt know, Medieval Modal music is very different to the modern kind. Medieval and Renaissance music was generally just modal counterpoint (i.e. multiple modal melody lines). Whereas modern modal music relies on chords and harmony but in a non-functional context. That's what I mean by 'Modal harmony sounds modern'. While it is ancient, as you say, it's revival (Neo-Modalism?) creates a very ambiguous sound which is very modern. That is a very interesting point though. Music seems to have come full circle. Starting with modality, discovering tonality, and then re-discovering modality again. 2. And your point about 'freedom' just comes down to semantics, I think. It all depends how you want to define freedom. Modal Jazz seeks freedom from chords. Before Modal Jazz, Jazz musicians based their improvisations on the melody (Louis Armstrong) or the chords (Charlie Parker). Modal Jazz seeks to break away from this and focus solely on the scale/mode. In doing so, it chained itself to other rules - like avoiding the diatonic tritone - and is therefore not completely 'free'. Free Jazz went a step further and rejected chord progressions, chords, scales and sometimes even notes (just making noise instead). But it nevertheless had melodic 'rules' and therefore was not completely 'free'. I think this is inevitable. Music needs structure, and structure needs rules, and rules mean constraints on freedom. Music without structure is just noise. So perhaps music can never be completely free. These are all interesting thoughts and ideas and debates to have, but they are largely philosophical as it is impossible to perfectly define 'freedom'. Because whenever you use the word 'freedom', this invites the obvious question: 'Freedom from what?'