C6th lap steel modal theory site

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 30 May 2003 8:59 am

Denny, I'm fine....I've got thick skin.

This is one of the best threads...,fish wrap and all...

I'm sure many people will be studying this for a very long time.

Much thanks to all who have unselfFISHly contibuted their time and knowledge.[This message was edited by HowardR on 30 May 2003 at 10:04 AM.]

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 30 May 2003 9:22 am

Denny, thanks for clearing that up for me, but look at what I found! Weird the way that works sometimes.

O.K. Do you have that Mai-Tai ready?

1. Bird was one of the last great Harmonic players. He proved complex approaches don't take away from the emotional soul of the music(tension and release). Bird is great to study, because he can be viewed as the culmination of the "hot" style pioneered by Louis Armstrong. Bird developed the ideas of extended chords and linear improvisation(of relating to each other, substitutions), the building blocks of modern jazz.

2. Birds solos were based on the underlying harmony. He paid more attention to classical music theory, voice leading than anyone before him. It's not so much that he was reinventing the wheel, it's the how's and why's of how he swung his notes and started his lines on the "and" of the one beat. This gives a sense of forward motion to your line against the rhythm section.

3. *Bird was not using Aeolian triads against a dom7 chord. Aeolean spells a minor triad(1, -3, 5). Bird was outlining the upper extension notes(9, #4, 13, spells major triad, 1, 3, 5) as important melody notes against a dom7 chord. It's just easier to grab a major triads notes on any instrument.

4. You are making it harder to see the right arpeggio lay on top of the right mode that spells the chord of the moment. You need this ability to be able to use poly-tonal substitutions without having to think about it much. *Chord tones, where are the chord tones? I want this information to turn into finger pattern memory positions and licks. To let go of the thinking, but have all the chord tones there to try different poly-tonal substitutions if I want to easily.

5. *Tension and release. The feeling of saying goodbye and being reunited with a loved one. If you are just using substitutions because the math is right, without knowing where the chord tones of the underlying harmony are, then you are not using voice leading. You end up only playing licks and are shooting in the dark, lines are choppy at best. It's best to use both ways of finding notes.

6. *(This statement has nothing to do with Bird and is for Denny). If the band is vamping A min7 dorian, I start my line there at A dorian to hit the home base notes and establish key. I then go up to B phyrgian (etc.) with my line while the band is still on A dorian. I establish key (release) first and then let tension build (phrygian etc.) but then go back home and get reunited with the release(A min7 dorian).

7. I am using accepted principles to teach music theory, because I am educated that way.

8. In the end, your ear has the finale say so, doesn't it. If what your doing works O.K. for you, for what your trying to do, "don't fix it if it ain't broke".

*umm, you still owe me an assessment of my approaches for a "major 9th chord". Thanks brah...

[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 31 May 2003 at 07:38 AM.]

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 30 May 2003 1:08 pm

"6. If the band is vamping A min7 dorian, I start my line there at A dorian to hit the home base notes and establish key. I then go up to B phyrgian with my line while the band is still on A dorian. I establish key (release) first and then let tension build(phrygian etc) but then go back home and get reunited with the release(A min7 dorian)."

Hi Jesse, I just think you're approaching this from the wrong way of thinking. If the band is playing on a static Am7, then why are you going from A dorian to B phrygian? First off, B phrygian=A dorian and the chord change is static (A is the mode tonic). If you wanted to make it interesting, you might want to imply a ii-V7 back to im, using any alterations you might see fit. Modes are basically just a tool used to show relationships between scales. I believe for steel guitar the best way of improvising would be based on a less linear approach, and a greater understanding of harmony. To think of chords (containing at least the seventh degree) as being composed of two triads is also a good approach, one that I was taught as a jazz guitar student. I.e., Cm9 = G-/C-. I could give more examples.

Another good approach to improvising has to do with playing the arpeggios vertically on one string and embellishing them from above and below the desired pitch--part of the Charlie Banacos methodology taught to me by Mike Stern.

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 30 May 2003 4:56 pm

Mike, wasn't it Mick Goodrick - who taught the one string approach to Stern? Remember the song "So What" D dorian, Eb dorian. Those guys were doing just what I suggested as well as Carlos Santana, a vamp is like modal playing. I think you forgot to factor into your observation that I know a lot of hip aproaches that I would use just like miles on a vamp and I left the approach/phyrgian thing open by tagging on the etc to it. i.e. (This is cool on guitar or steel over Amin7) On your guitar, on the high E string as the location for all your root notes, play perfectly voiced 4th chords, starting at the 5th fret A note, and move it up the neck on the same notes as A blues scale, as if it were just played on the High E string. A blues = A C D Eb E G.

In case you don't know how to voice that chord, it looks like this:
E string = A = 5th fret
B string = E = 5th fret
G string = B = 4th fret
D string = F#= 4th fret

*On C6 lap steel, I start at the 9th fret on strings 2, 3, 4. The starting A note is on the second string at the 9th fret. The 12th fret is A dorian min7 (Denny's modal box). I had to invert the notes on steel to make it work (H to L = A, F#, E). Just play the A blues scale on the second string with this voicing, very jazzy against A min7 at the 12th fret. This is a good example how all this theory on other instruments can be applied to steel.

**Rockabilly E dom7 = C# blues scale played on the 2nd string/1st fret, use the inverted 4th voicing on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th string (H to L = C#, Bb, Ab). Use frets 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 for the notes found in C# min blues scale/inverted 4th chord. This one sounds best to me for Swinging Hawaiian too. I let my ear lead me to this one. I'm not sure why this one works so good, but it might be that the inverted 4th voicing is related to C# phyrgian ( shares same parent scale as E Dom7) or it might be the related minor to E major which would turn it into C# Aeolean? *For the 5 chord B Dom7, use the same blues scale trick only run it up E minor blues scale starting on the 2nd string/4th fret. Yea, this one seems to work best for the C6 steel, on guitar it's not as good?

**That's a Hammond B3 trick, running chords with the blues scale in the top of the voicings. If your take this approach and lay it over a dom7 chord (Honky Tonkin, Hank W.) with the same root name (E dom7/ mixolydian "4th fret/2nd string root") and lay the (E min7/dorian "7th fret/3rd string root") with the (E blues scale trick "4th fret/2nd string root" inverted 4th chord voiced, strings 2, 3, 4, E C# B) over the E dom7 chord, you will have greatly expanded your options and can now sound like a "Swinging Horn Section" if your out of your mind!

*Another great way to use this Blues scale trick is to use the 5th note of your Dom7. e.g. E dom7 = B minor7 dorian = B blues scale going up the 2nd string (11th fret)/inverted 4th voicing up and down the neck against E dom7 (4th fret/mixolydian) This sounds great on C6 non pedal steel.

*I find if I use the dorian box as home base when I use this approach, I phrase it better in the line. So, I just wait till I'm hovering around the Dorian/minor 7 box and slip it in, playing like a freckin wild man!
*This "blues scale trick" works on any chord voicing, experiment with it.

This is what is hard about talking about theory, it's easy to make assumptions about what the other person is thinking about. I had a post awhile back telling Denny something similar to your statement to me and I was just letting him know I agreed with him on that point again, but see how easy it is to confuse what I was saying about bird? Course, if you had read and remembered all of the massive posts in this thread, you would have discovered that I also use poly-tonal approaches to navigate my linear playing. So Mike, do you understand Denny's Modal Boxes and how to use them? Tell us some more of your approaches on steel over what chords...Thanks...

P.S. Linear playing is anything that involves relationships, substitutions related. I happen to like single line playing as well as chords on steel. The ii-V-im does create some nice tension, thanks for that.

<[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 06 June 2003 at 04:21 PM.]

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 30 May 2003 6:51 pm

First, let me just state for the record that I'm nowhere near the steel player I'd like to be. That said, my approach to playing steel is completely different than my approach to playing guitar. I see and hear the steel as a very special instrument that is capable of tones and timbres not possible on spanish guitar. I think part of the beauty of the steel is the sense of ease of lyricism that takes over the player (me), as if the guitar is guiding me. This is a trap, for sure, but a tender one, indeed. I find that singing the lines I'm playing keeps me honest, and forces me to play better. Even as a guitarist, I tend not to think modally, unless I'm doing a comping thing.

Here are few examples of the triadic approach which is based on stuff I got from Eddie Harris' Intervallistic Concept years ago--

There are 4 basic triads--major, minor, diminished and augmented--all of which are accessible in C6 tuning.

A seventh chord consists of 2 triads--maj and dim (D7 = D and F#o)

A minor 7th consists of two triads-- min and maj (Dmin7 = Dm and F)

A ninth chord consists of three triads--maj, dim and min (D9 = D, F#o and Amin)

A minor 9th consists of min, maj, min (Dmin9 = Dm, F and Amin

A dim 7th chord consists of dim and min triads
11th chords are based on 4 triads, 13th chords are based on 5 triads--I think you see where this is going.

We can superimpose triads to give us our altered chords, both minor and major.
ie., E/Bb gives us Bb7b5b9, Ab+/Bb gives us Bb+11, Db-/Bb- gives us Bb-7+11, etc.
I should also add that knowledge of scales and their modes is important for the utilization of passing chords and such, but I tend to look at the mode tonic rather than each scale degree mode. In other words, I find a parent scale rather than run the changes and try to improvise on a theme. Just my way of thinking on the steel--I think the way it's laid out is conducive to an intervallic approach. If the modal theory works for you and you create better music because of it, then

(Maybe some of this stuff was covered earlier, but to be honest, alot of the posts were tough to sift through. Maybe I have too short an attention span...)
BTW, I'm really only interested in using the steel in one context for my music, and that is the Hot Jazz style, so for me it's mostly a matter of trying to get some chops. I'm tired...catch you later![This message was edited by Mike Neer on 30 May 2003 at 08:45 PM.]

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 30 May 2003 7:43 pm

Mike, that's called poly-tonal substitution that you're doing, it's a big subject. I agree, looking at manageable triads must be part of the equation. I thinks it's best to use a lot of different angles, and the ones that work best for you are the keepers.

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 30 May 2003 9:44 pm

Help me out here. Are you saying Parker would play Aeolean over Mixolydian? And if so why would he not similarly play Dorian over Ionian?

I only play guitar and E9 pedal steel, so I skipped over the stuff in this thread specific to lap. I also don't know where in Denny's original material the reference to playing dorian over IM7 occurs; how axiomatic is this idea to his basic system?

However, having myself made a study of this business of subbing things over chords with different roots, especially from the viewpoint of guitarists, I believe I know what Jesse is basically getting at. He mentions Frank Gambale above. Gambale published a two-volume set of instructional books awhile back which dealt with this stuff in detail. Although he doesn't discuss playing the whole ii dorian mode over a IM7, he does give his opinion that the ii minor pentatonic in this situation "sounds awful." He strongly favors playing minor pent. stuff up a M3rd (phrygian). On the other hand, one of his favorite approaches for playing over a V7sus4 is a minor pentatonic a whole-step up (VIm). Significantly, this is suggested for use over a 7sus4, nota 7th chord with a 3rd. I believe this is a case of the the 3rd of the 7th chord conflicting with the minor 3rd of the pentatonic a whole-step up, since that note then becomes a 4th of the 7th chord (or 11th). Not that "Frank says so, so it's right," but I too have found that there seems to be kind of a consensus that playing minor stuff up a whole step from a IM7 isn't a preferred approach, or at least it isn't mentioned much.

On the other hand, Scott Henderson does include it in a video exposition of his.

If it works for you, who can argue with that?

Some comments that may be repetitive of what's already been said:

1. A IM7 chordal situation is entirely different from a V7, and would less likely admit of something demanding resolution (after all, that's what the IM is usually there for).

2.The major 7th chord itself, regardless of the situation, is less able to accept dissonance than a dominant chord of any kind. The tritone between the 3rd and b7th of the dominant chord opens the way for a whole lot of things. The function of the V7 chord is to provide dissonance (thus tension) before resolution.

3. If you play a structure over a major 7th chord that adds the 4th of the chord it creates a tritone between that note and the natural 7th. That generally is an unwelcome dissonance. (On the other hand, a #4 will work just fine, which is why many jazz players prefer it over a natural fourth in these kinds of situations. [See George Russell's "The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization for Improvisation"]).

4. My experience has been that the most natural-sounding superimpositions are usually those that root on chord tones of the chord subbed over. Rooting on the 6th works better than the 2nd, for me, just because of there being no 4th in that shape. If I can play stuff up a whole step and miss the 4th of the M7th chord, it works okay. But I have one less usable note then.

Obviously, what really decides this question is what what works for somebody, and what situation they're in.

People that take the approach, for example, of favoring a particular scale (major, dorian, lydian, etc.) to use as the parent scale for most everything they play, eventually get to where they can see all the relevant chord shapes for that key in the parent scale; that way they can find the needed gravity notes.

As a general rule for me, it's certainly a lot easier to grab subs over a major chord (particularly a major 7th) that are based on chord tones or the 6th. I mix a lot of different approaches, so I can't claim to be a master of one in particular. It's best to never say never, of course.

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 30 May 2003 at 10:52 PM.][This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 30 May 2003 at 10:54 PM.][This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 30 May 2003 at 11:02 PM.][This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 01 June 2003 at 02:32 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 6:14 am

Jeff,

Regarding your:

I only play guitar and E9 pedal steel, so I skipped over the stuff in this thread specific to lap. I also don't know where in Denny's original material the reference to playing dorian over IM7 occurs; how axiomatic is this idea to his basic system?

There is NOTHING in our abstract discussions that is axiom to the basic system, ... and such abstract is in a big way contrary to the system and it's intent. I developed the "system" to provide the simple mode template on the 6th tuned Steel that begs to be seen / realized, separate from infinite complex discussions of applications that have historically detracted from the simple and quite valuable mode template(s). Being able to see the 6th tuned Steel template also affords us the ability to see the substitutions and why / how they exist on the neck.

The most important thing about modes in my way of thinking is they exist of their own mathematical accord as a quite simple slide rule, abeit in "fancy" names most folks haven't paid allot of attention to. The existance and our realization of the mode template for the 6th tuned Steel neck affords us the ability to graphically see what is occuring in the stuff we already know about the Steel, ...and gives us a template to learn and apply new things MUCH faster than we could without that template as a map.

I don't look at abstract discussions as being "Modes", but rather see such discussions as just part of the infinite abstract that can and has been bandered about using the mode slide rule and templates ... not a whole lot different than the infinite abstract that can be discussed about any music basics such as triads that exist separate from discussions about what all can be applied to them.

It has been my 44 years of music experience that most musicians have just barely if ever looked into mode structure, and were "scared" off by the infinite abstract and often mind-boggling and confusing discussions about them, as we have pretty well illustrated in this forum chain; Never to realize that modes are just a simple math structure of very valuable templates that are barely more complicated than do-re-mi and that exist separate from the complex discussions about them. My intent was to make that delineation and provide the templates that show their simplicity, especially for non-pedal Steel which I dearly love; And in my course that accomanies both the Steel and Guitar application charts, provide enough information in simple terms that people can fully understand the importance of the slide rule and math behind the fancy names ... again separate from the complicated discussions of approaches and applications.

-------------------------

But being a bit Asperger Austistic, it is more often than not very difficult for me to present things in simple manners! What a Catch-22, huh?!?

-------------------------

Now none of what I just said takes away from the treasure of the discussions in this forum chain. I am elated and enthralled to such terrific ideas, presentations and brain-pickin.

In that regard, to answer your question about Dorian over IMaj7; That was just one insignificant example for some great and heated discussions about excentuating partials / extentions to a different mode theme; And of course I unwittingly picked one of the most cosmic examples ... because I had been sitting here for a couple hours dinking stuff over Maj9 on a Neck.

I was also happily entertained by your recent posts here, ... which to me illustrated how several people can be saying pretty much the same thing in different words and concepts; And what a treasure that is in refining and adding to a person's individual concepts (and words!). Shootz, ... by the time this discussion chain is finished, I might even be able to remember how to spell the mode names correctly!

ALOHA,
DT~
[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 07:26 AM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 6:36 am

Awl-RIGHT, Howard! I'm so glad you didn't go off the deep end with that anchor around yer neck.

Unselfishly contributed???? Heck, if other folks are taking it like me ... we're darn addicted already! Most rewarding how much good stuff has been presented.

Anyway; I'm real glad we didn't put you under so much pressure that you wound up in a 4th floor ward somewhere! I was beginin to worry!

ALOHA,
DT~

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 31 May 2003 7:00 am

Hey Denny, Check out the perfect 4th voicing over "A blues scale trick" on steel I just edited into my post 6 posts up at pg. 6 , 2003 @ 5:56. "A dorian" at the 12 fret (Denny's modal box) is home base. This is a good example how well the basic modal boxes work as a main point of reference and expanding from there.

**I have this approach worked out from guitar, trying to make it work on steel. The last example of this approach out of several, I think sounds best, like Swinging Hawaiian/Rockabilly. I used my ear to find it's position on the steel neck. C# minor pentatonic scale my be related to E major as the relative miner? On strings 2, 3, and 4 at the 1st fret/2nd string C# root for the C# minor blues scale/inverted 4th voiceing, played against E dom7/ 4th fret.

<[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 03 June 2003 at 08:59 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 7:03 am

Jess,

your:

*umm, you still owe me an assessment of my approaches for a "major 9th chord"

Man, I am up to my ears in kazoos here right now. I'm barely able to zip in here and just ran out of time now. Could you please reference the above so I'll know where to go look for it; It would REALLY help me right now; Then maybe next chance I get to zip in I can take a look; Posts are hap'nin so fast here I just can't keep up.

Sometime in the next few days I've just gotta take some time to really read the GREAT stuff you guys are posting.

Your post just above this one says it all 'bout them boxes! Gonna blow a fuse here if I don't get back to take a real good look at what you guys are postin.

THANKS,
ALOHA,
DT~[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 08:21 AM.]

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 31 May 2003 8:17 am

Denny, my answer to your past question to me about how I would approach a "Major 9th chord" is located on Pg. 4, 25 May @ 11:21 a.m.

*These are poly-tonal substitutions for linear playing (related substitutions) that require you to know where your "chord tones" for the chord of the momement (what the band is playing) are at on your neck to make the substitutions work.

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 31 May 2003 4:38 pm

Denny,

Thanks for the explanation. When I get some time, I'm going to look more closely at the templates and see if there's anything I can use on E9, when a lever or pedal converts the tuning to B6 or A6. Also, I'll be interested to see what you've put together for standard guitar.

Carry on,

Jeff

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 5:56 pm

Yea Jeff, ...it's the "explaining" that causes the jungle of "mode" discussions!

-------------------

The spanish geetar part of the course still has some work to be done; It hasn't benefitted from the attention and feedback for corrections, clarifying, editing, etc that the Steel portion has here. Hopefully some time in the not too distant future I'll have the time to spend on going over it with a fine tooth comb.

ALOHA,
DT~[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 07:02 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 6:53 pm

Jess,

My thrust right now is to make sure people understand that the amazing simplicity of the mode template and 6th tuned steel mode boxes exist separate from our discussions; Two separate matters; One that is amazingly simple, and one that can get VERY complicated and distracting to the simplicity of the mode template. When folks realize that, then the complexity of discussion will not discourage the simplicty of the mode template, ...which has historically been the biggest distractor to examining the very valuable and very simple mode template(s) as the very basis for the vast majority of music on our half of the planet.

I also want to help reconcile our different perspectives which for most practical purposes seems to be congruent and saying pretty much the same thing in different concepts and different words as far as I can tell with decent but limited examination of the discussions' details. Even when some folks say on one hand that something is "wrong" in concept, they usually follow it up with some example(s) that turn the "wrong" into right in a different context / perspective; To wit:

I agree whole heartedly with your Maj9 approach; And the SUPER stuff you are providing. And your mentioning different finger positions providing a variety of utility is RIGHT ON for BOTH spanish geetar ....AND for steel geetar by the different note inversions, voicings and physical / mechanical layout of each mode box (such as playing different mode oriented licks in other substitution boxes).

But I CAN'T agree with your specific disclusions for other folks' different ways to say/do the same things. I CAN and wholeheartedly agree that those disclusions apply to the perspectives that are working for you; But there are other perspectives where what you disclude does indeed work rather well. After digesting the several different approaches presented by different people in this discussion chain, I see them saying pretty much the same things from different perspectives / concepts ...each with their own new valuable contributions. I see absolutely no difference between you explaining the (Bird) use of a triad and all that goes with it, a step above theme mode on it's scale, to accentuate the partials / extensions; ...... And someone saying / doing the same thing by using the next mode up the parent scale. (DAMN, THERE'S the correct spelling for "excentuate"

... just fell out of the cosmos!) It's a matter of your quite appropriate statement 30 May 2003 08:43 PM "I thinks it's best to use a lot of different angles, and the ones that work best for you are the keepers". The very things you said make things more difficult by my approach, indeed makes those very examples much easier for me. Will Jeff Smith please step up to the bench:

People that take the approach, for example, of favoring a particular scale (major, dorian, lydian, etc.) to use as the parent scale for most everything they play, eventually get to where they can see all the relevant chord shapes for that key in the parent scale; that way they can find the needed gravity notes.

BINGO!

I keep expounding upon these things because contrary to the approach not working for you, IT DOES WORK FOR ME AND IS THE VERY BASIS OF THE SYSTEM I "INVENTED" TO HELP MAKE IT SIMILARLY EASY FOR OTHERS TOO ... especially those like me that might be mentally challenged

; And by the looks of the results reflected in this forum I think it's fair to say there just might be something to the system! And I'll bet the bottle of T-Bird I owe you that there are folks that have similarly found new light by your approaches ... and everyone else's that have contributed. THAT IS GOLD to me!

Using your Charlie Parker example VERBATUM: (Regardless of whether it's non-pedal Steel with fixed boxes, or spanish guitar with EITHER fixed boxes or different finger patterns for each mode), ...it's MUCH easier for me to sub an Aeolean for Mixolydian to work off of the Mixolydian's 2,4,6,7, if I think and play in terms of Aeolean's affording THE IDENTICAL SAME THING oriented to it's 1,3,5 and everything built thereupon. The Mixolydian and Aeolean are IDENTICAL notes and intervals. It might very well be that you have gained the ability to substitute extension / partial numbers in place of root scale numbers and interpolate seamlessly; But I have not achieved that, nor do I think I can; So doing something that makes all those numbers fall right into a 1,3,5 place removes all the interpolative computations and frees my abused brain to play.

Pointed is that your music accomplishments are obviously way ahead of many if not most people on the board here; And it's obvious that you can interpolate partials in real time much better than I can; So how do folks not at that level find a shorter / easier path to accomplish similar things and develop towards the depth of understanding you have? I think that system I have presented and some of the ways I use it in more simple terms CAN provide that shorter path.

But just as important is for readers to realize that our different approaches and concepts are all congruent, equally valuable and say quite the same thing in different words and concepts.

VERY INDICATIVE of the validity of several folks' different perspectives of the same ideas that are "competing" for recognition in our discussions, ...is what is said right there in the 19 examples you provided. Those 19 points of suggestion are a virtual recap of each and every one of the different perspectives in the discussions as valid. REMEMBER, ..."Modes" are just fancy names for an amazingly simple template that exists SEPARATE from everyone's ideas that can be applied vertically or linearly to the simple linear mode template.

After reading the posts of our discussions of the different approaches, I am most gratified that regardless of what seems like "arguement" at times, the different perspectives are QUITE congruent and similar but just use different words and concepts to say the same thing.

I mean ....look at all the phoenominal treasure of information that is pouring forth in this discussion thread! Heck, this stuff is coming in faster than I can keep up with it, ....and I ain't no slouch in understanding what's being said in real time. The 19 points you recently posted, and the stuff Jeff Smith posted 30 May 2003 10:44 PM, and the other stuff I can't even begin to reference right now, ....is as good as ANY lab or invironment I've ever experienced !

I think we can all agree to "disagree" and realize that abstract discussions can be traced back to the very simple graphic display of the mode template that exists as an axiom separate from the infinite abstract of different individual ideas of applications to it.

THANKS A MIL,
ALOHA,
DT~
Autism

[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 08:18 PM.]

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 31 May 2003 8:04 pm

What'd he say, what'd he say???

[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 31 May 2003 at 09:06 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 8:42 pm

Tried to post a tab. Too wide; gotta woodshed the bb program. working......[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 09:44 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 8:47 pm

Jess, ....He don't know; The boy is touched!

[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 10:26 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 8:58 pm

TUNE Malegana.

THIS IS NOT A SONG TABLATURE. It is only a mode study for a melody most folks are familiar with, that changes modes in the song 3 times relative to the chords, but only uses 2 scales in doing so.

Malegena.
Key of E.
Chords E, F, G.
Modes in E Mixolydian, modulates to E Phrygian in the middle of the E chord section, then;
Modulates to F Lydian (same scale as E Phrygian) for the F and G chords. The the occasional natural 3 note in the F-G section is passing to tie the combined modes' sound (IMHO).
(E Mixolydian) + (F Lydian = E Phrygian!) = 2 scales used in song!
<pre>
[E mixolydian]
[modulates to]
[ E Phrygian ][F lydian]
[F lydian = E phrygian!]
]------------4--5--7--5-----------------------5----7---
]------------4--5--7--5-----------------------5----7---
]---------------------------------------------5----7---
]------------4--5--7--5-----------------------5----7---
]------------4--5--7--5-----------(passing 4)-5----7---
]------------4--5--7--5-----------------------5----7---
CHORDS [BOX]
</pre>[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 11:00 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 9:15 pm

AN INTERESTING PHRYGIAN BASED LICK LINE:
4/4 time.
<pre>
[passing][E Phrygian [E Mixolydian
]---------------------5--------------12----------4-----3=2----------------
]------------------5--5--5---12------12--12--11--4--4--3=2--2--2=4==3==2--
]---------------5--5-----5---12----------12--11-----4-------2--2=4==3==2--
]----------4=5--5----------------12----------------------------2=4==3==2--
]--5=4--5--4=5-------------------12----------------------------2=4==3==2--
]--5=4--5------------------------------------------------------2=4==3==2--
v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v-rake v
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 (3)
"v" = picking.
1 2 3 4 = quarter notes.
</pre>

Holy Moley Gertrude, ...the boy IS touched.

<pre>
cr2003wdt
</pre>[This message was edited by Denny Turner on 31 May 2003 at 11:02 PM.]

Denny Turner · Post by **Denny Turner** » 31 May 2003 10:09 pm

Paul Graupp · Post by **Paul Graupp** » 1 Jun 2003 3:20 am

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 1 Jun 2003 6:44 am

P.S. I didn't get a chance to read the tab up above before posting, but that's what we need more of, with the chords. Cool...

Denny, now hold on boy, I've always said your basic modal template for steel was ingenious. You seeing nothing wrong with playing 6 Aeoelian to grab the upper extensions of a 5 Dom7 chord, is a good example of how your a couple of coals short of a fire here.

1. If you had thought a little bit about why bird was using a major triad up a whole step instead of a minor triad (Aeolean), you would see a big problem with one of the notes found in Aeolean.
2. Modes spell chords, the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th notes of a mode spell a specific chord that works really well with that mode, ergo = Chord/scale
3. The major 3rd interval found in any major or dom7 chord is a very important interval, in fact one of the most important.
4. If you have a major 3rd interval (the rest of the band playing a dom7) and superimpose a 4th interval next to it , what happens? It suspends the chord and creates unwanted dissonance.
5. Aeolean spells a minor triad on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th note of it's mode. *The 3rd of your Aeolean is the 4th of your Mixolydian because they come from the same parent major scale!
6. You aren't paying attention to the chordal tones of chords and this is why you think poly-tonal substitutions are complex when they are not.
7. I have just proved that you are wrong, get over it and buy a couple of good theory books so you can take your "Modal Template" to the next level. Practical application...

Denny, I'm your friend and would not steer you wrong on this. If you owned "Mark Levine's, the Jazz piano book" and "Frank Gambale's Technique book 1 & 2" none of this would seem complicated and that goes for everyone here. You have not provided any practical application of how to use your boxes i.e. how would you approach "Honky Tonkin"? What subs from your boxes would you use to connect your lines?

*I believe the Modal Template you have created is one of the main points of reference to expand from with everything else on C6 non pedal steel. But I think you should consider that there are millions of guitar players around the world and the stuff I am talking about is the norm now-a-days. If you don't know it, your getting left behind. You can get by without it if your just playing Major and minor blues scales and outline chord arpeggios, but there is a lot more out there if a person wants to take the time to look. *Sorry I started getting deep into theory, but you have been stating some approaches that can mess up the sound. I will always be grateful to you for hipping me to your "Modal Template".

[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 01 June 2003 at 05:35 PM.]

Jeff A. Smith · Post by **Jeff A. Smith** » 1 Jun 2003 2:01 pm

I made a correction/clarification to my post of 5-30-03,10:44pm.

Since we're talking about Frank Gambale, I suddenly remembered that when he suggested using a minor pentatonic a whole-step up from a V7 chord, (like originally mentioned in my post above), he was actually referring only to a V7sus4. Big difference!

Although the tritone dissonance between a fourth and a natural seventh is gone in a dominant 7th chord,(as opposed to a major 7th), there would still be enough of dissonance between the major third and a fourth (like Jesse is discussing above) that you wouldn't want to emphasize that pairing very much; particularly if they were in the same octave. (The pentatonic sub used over a 7sus4 in this manner hasn't been something I've yet gotten into, so I suppose that's why I was a little out of touch with the thought behind it.)

However, playing the aeolian 7-note scale up a whole-step in this manner wouldn't be as much of a problem, since you wouldn't be forced to deal with the problem note as directly as with the pentatonic (or a triad). If Denny has reasons for liking this, I certainly won't argue with what works for him.

This is the corrected relevant portion (about Gambale) in my above post:

On the other hand, one of his favorite approaches for playing over a V7sus4 is a minor pentatonic a whole-step up (VIm). Significantly, this is suggested for use over a 7sus4, not a 7th chord with a 3rd. I believe this is a case of the the 3rd of the 7th chord conflicting with the minor 3rd of the pentatonic a whole-step up, since that note then becomes a 4th of the 7th chord (or 11th).

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 1 Jun 2003 4:05 pm

Jeff, you can use Aeolean a whole step above a Dom7 chord and I do sometimes. Denny was talking about Bird using a Major triad above a Dom7 which isolates the Dom7's ,9 ,#11 , and 13. This approach is famous, it's so you can find those intervals real easy and use them in your line. Denny said he sees no problem with Aeolean doing the same thing as the major triad, the flatted 3rd of Aeolean is the same note as the 4th (suspended) of the Dom7. The Aeoleans notes and arpeggio notes don't line up right to use this approach easily. Looking at Aeolean this way is counter productive to the proper way that makes poly-tonal lines easy to use.

*There is a easy trick that you can learn that allows you to spell any chord in any key, just learn the 6 most important triads and memorize them. If you don't know this, it can make poly-tonal subs look like reading Latin. Complex theory is just a trick way of looking at how 2 things relate to each other, "Linear playing".

The main Motown studio crew recorded a lot of beutiful hits in their day, great muscicians. Barry Gordy went to the local jazz clubs and hired the best players for Motown's main crew (Funk Bros.). These guys were schooled jazz/blues players. Half of them played with Charlie Parker, they all used poly-tonal linear approaches. When these guys had some free nights, they were out playing jazz at their local clubs.