[ghyt wembpang]

well i guess my point was supposed to be that you shouldn't worry about writing in specific modes or anything like that too much, it's good to do it sometimes to learn but it's a bad way to make ALL your music.
There's pieces composed as a technical exercise and pieces that are composed purely as espression; those latter ones are the ones you should really just jam and not worry about things being theoretically 'correct' with, because no matter what you do there's a bit of theory that covers it.

[statisticquill]

Originally Posted by ghyt wembpang

well i guess my point was supposed to be that you shouldn't worry about writing in specific modes or anything like that too much, it's good to do it sometimes to learn but it's a bad way to make ALL your music.
There's pieces composed as a technical exercise and pieces that are composed purely as espression; those latter ones are the ones you should really just jam and not worry about things being theoretically 'correct' with, because no matter what you do there's a bit of theory that covers it.

Totally agree with this, I think the most important place where theory comes in for me though is ensuring things don't get stale. When you see the patterns in your own music it allows you to break them. I love jamming, but when I sit down and just improvise I think about what I'm doing, i.e; okay, starting in this key with this tonic, going to use such and such chords etc. Then maybe the next day I'll be like "well I played something along these lines yesterday so I'm going to do this differently today".

[aeoR]

Originally Posted by statisticquill

Totally agree with this, I think the most important place where theory comes in for me though is ensuring things don't get stale. When you see the patterns in your own music it allows you to break them. I love jamming, but when I sit down and just improvise I think about what I'm doing, i.e; okay, starting in this key with this tonic, going to use such and such chords etc. Then maybe the next day I'll be like "well I played something along these lines yesterday so I'm going to do this differently today".

You don't need theory to back up this phenomenon. Music theory is Really just about putting coordination and guidelines to the art.

You may or may not be aware of and may or may not use the current modern theories and still achieve the exact same results but you'll likely use them partially because most instruments are built around the chromatic scale tuned to 440Hz.

[StkMtd]

I don't even see theory as a composition tool. It's more like a common language that speaking will save you time with other musicians. Kind of a form of compression.

[Djreject]

I can see why these threads deviate so easily

[TL072]

I will try to get to answering a clarification about the jibberish I posted prior, but I would point out that modes are useful particularly if you want to play either

a) something that is jazzy

Despite jazz theory almost being about throwing theory out the window, once you can jam, if you are someone like me, who is not a jazz musician primarily, but you want something to have that feel, it is a great place to start

b) some modes have very particular feels, whether you are using theory or not, the only way you are going to get those feels (say phrygian) is by using most of those scales

c) you have played one of those scales and are trying to figure out what chords you can use over these weird notes. I am not saying a good musical sense will not get you through, but I would say that if you are jamming with someone, having a framework like an understanding of modes will help you play a minimal number of bad notes. Again some have an innate sense of what to play, but even those who I know who are like this if they know modes, they will use depending on the context.

[TL072]

Originally Posted by SweHockey

Thank you. But I got lost here. Are you saying that I can change scale as I change chords? So if I play Dm, then I use D dorian, and then when I play Em I change scale to E phrygian or E minor?

I think I see what you are misunderstanding, and I will also clarify what I was saying.

The first thing to keep in mind is that going through the modes of C major there are actually three kinds of minor scales. There is dorian (which has the intervals 3b,7b) which is built off the II of the major scale, phrygian (2b, 3b, 6b, 7b) which is built off the III of the major scale, and aoelian (3b, 6b, 7b) which is built off the VI of the major scale. Aoelian is called the natural minor scale (or the relative minor scale). Those numbers I have put in brackets represent the major scale notes, but flat.

Following so far?

Second thing, a basic minor chord has a 1,3b, and 5 in it. So when I play E,G,B on a keyboard I get a minor chord. If there was no other musical context, I could be playing in dorian, phrygian, or aeolian. Until I play a few others notes (say in the melody), there is not really a mode to what I am playing, but I am playing a minor chord.

Ok.

So to answer your first question. If you play a D minor chord, you could keep changing your scales as long as any other musical stuff wasn't pushing against it (i.e. an Eb and an E), although sometimes playing against stuff creates excellent tension in the music, so you might want to anyway. So this bit of theory is great because you realise that there are a bunch of scales that you can play over chords which you might not have thought you could do.

My original point related to this, but extended it. So lets say I am playing a track in D dorian. I then play an E minor chord. Assume I am not playing any other notes than those in E minor. Like Schrödingers cat (this may be a bad analogy, but...), there are a couple of scenarios that could be true, which we will not know the answer to until we hear more notes or another chord. I could be still in D dorian, or I could be now in E dorian, or E aeolian.

The magic is that E minor has notes from the D dorian scale, so changing to it did not seem like a big leap. If I played D major next, then that E minor chord actually turned out to be in E dorian (and I had actually changed the key when no one was looking). I could play a Gb major chord, and it would turn out that my E minor chord was actually in a sense in E aeolian. Some of these will sound better than others, but the points remains that there will be a relationship between the first and second chord (shared notes from a scale), and the second and third (also notes shared from the same scale).

Anyway, what I am saying is that if you keep this stuff in mind you can imagine some pretty crazy chord and keys changes that would not expect would sorta (or totally) work.

Good to type this out, as it helps me keep it straight in my head, and if it makes no sense, go on and ask for a clarification.

[statisticquill]

Originally Posted by StkMtd

I don't even see theory as a composition tool. It's more like a common language that speaking will save you time with other musicians. Kind of a form of compression.

EXACTLY! This is why it frustrates me so much when I see people on production forums talking about how theory is just a suggestion, or that they don't need to learn it, that they've been fine with a C scale and 3 chords until now etc etc...

If someone with no knowledge of theory came up to me and tried to tell me about their music, I would think they're a joke because they can't speak the language of musicians. Doesn't matter how good they are at producing, you need to be able to speak the language. Plus, ignoring the theory just fucks you over more when you want to take your music to the next level. If you don't know theory and you want to learn some more advanced compositional methods and you open a book that tries to teach you this stuff, you won't be able to understand it. It'd be like opening a math textbook without knowing any math. Before you could learn calculus you'd have to go back and learn what addition and subtraction and multiplication and division are.
Sorry for getting off topic, just trying to pass on some important info that people often miss...

Anyways, more on modes:
Another brick in the wall was written in the dorian mode. So was the Halo soundtrack, the combat themes are all in dorian.
With modes you want to keep it modal; for example if playing in D dorian, you run into a problem with the F. If you raise the F to F# you're playing in the key of D major. If you lower it to F natural it sounds like D minor. The solution is to work around the F, so you don't have to play it (at least, not as much). This way it doesn't feel like D minor or D major, it feels like the mode.

[aeoR]

Originally Posted by statisticquill

If someone with no knowledge of theory came up to me and tried to tell me about their music, I would think they're a joke because they can't speak the language of musicians. Doesn't matter how good they are at producing, you need to be able to speak the language. Plus, ignoring the theory just fucks you over more when you want to take your music to the next level.

Pure bullshit right there bro, you've just spit in the face of the vast majority of the most talented music artists in the world.

[TL072]

Originally Posted by aeoR

Pure bullshit right there bro, you've just spit in the face of the vast majority of the most talented music artists in the world.

You might be right, but for the wrong reasons. It would depend what type of musician you are talking about (classical, country western for example?). I would also think that there are far more people who play music in this world outside of the western world, than are in it.

The point about communication is good though. Every musical style has theory, you just might not call it that. I think theory is mainly just a way of talking about thoughts, sounds, textures, rhythms, etc.

Electronic producers have terminology, ways of explaining themselves, that to non-musician could sound like nonsense. Think about it, acid lines, reece baselines, amens, risers, breaks-downs, wobbles.

I should also add that I have jammed with many people who have 0 musical theory, sometimes it is different, but still lots of fun and they are often better musicians than me.

[statisticquill]

Originally Posted by aeoR

Pure bullshit right there bro, you've just spit in the face of the vast majority of the most talented music artists in the world.

Sorry that sounded a little harsh. I didn't mean that I judge the quality of someone's music by their knowledge of theory, I meant that if they can't talk about it using the theory, they won't make sense to other musicians. Its like when someone comes on these forums asking how to make dubstep or something, and people are trying to tell them about LFOs and filter cutoff and sub bass and stuff but they can't understand it because they don't know any of the theory behind production.