Ricardo -> RE: Which scales? (Dec. 1 2019 21:58:29)
|
Line by line? Ok, well, you guys asked for it![:D] “Flamenco E (por Arriba) Mode”.... I have stated numerous times that using the term “mode” to describe what he is trying to describe is not the smartest thing to do as it leads to confusion regarding what mode might mean. Most of us that know flamenco, know exactly what he is referring to, not to be confused with Alegrias or Farruca in E minor, I would suspect he is using “mode” to distinguish the key. For example, to keep consistent I would hope he would describe Alegrias as “major mode” or Farruca as “minor mode”, so that Solea would be the “flamenco mode”. In this regard we can simply replace the word “mode” with “KEY” for any and all situations that involve flamenco. THat way we can reserve the correct term usage for “mode”, in context of when we might need it, referring to a specific scale application. I know that with “Key” people think only “do re mi” or “A B C”, but it can refer to both at once “Flamenco KEY of A”, or “Key of A Flamenco”, for example. “The flamenco mode is identical to the E mode (Dorian Greek Yada yada, or descending Phrygian yada yada) but has an unstable third (major or minor) [spells the scale in reverse order, as per Greeks], most striking feature is the semitone between first two degrees E-F....” Ok I paraphrased because this is an extremely frustrating blurb that jumps all over the place. First of all, it’s not “identical”, we can say it “at times resembles”. Greeks used a different tuning system than the guitar does. But ignoring that, this business of trying to relate to ancient Greeks vs European Western Baroque say, and forcing a descending vs ascending concept of describing a simple scale, overly complicates a non musical related issue. When describing the way the music is functioning we don’t need to get into the evolution of all music since the beginning of man and how we arrived at the present day picado. So complicating terminology that has changed over time historically (Doric vs phrygian etc, the names are arbitrary) is not helpful and should be left, at most, as some footnote somewhere. Ok so next the “unstable third”, already flying in the face of “identical” to the Greek mode, so what’s up with that? Anybody that might have already encountered music in the key of A minor, probably has noticed the issue of the G being raised for the sake of the Dominant chord “E major”, and the issue with the flamenco mode here is no different. “Unstable” therefore, is a poor word choice, implying perhaps something like what happens in blues. This fact needs to be pointed out immediately so that someone that understands this concept already (how and why the G changes in A minor key) can relate better, and not think the author is describing some other bizarre exotic thing related to Ancient Greece, medieval times, or other! (Indeed, I think it’s why folks go on about a nonsense 8 note scale, but never do that for basic minor key songs!) [:D] Last the E-F “THE MOST striking” thing...it’s a subjective personal opinion that this one interval is the thing. Because Locrian and Super locrian, mode 2 of melodic minor, mode 5 harmonic major, etc, has the same “striking” interval, so how the hell could a student tell the modes apart if that is ALL that was so important? I guess I would point out that E-F and C-B above or below those allow for parallel 5ths/4ths to move TOGETHER by half step, and THIS fact might be a striking characteristic of the mode. “ relative major and minor modes, C major and A minor.....secondary dominants suggest brief modulations....”. Ok, this info is good however we need to first establish the TONAL system called “phrygian key” that could POSSIBLY allow for such a thing to occur...which he tries to do next incorrectly. Otherwise, a knowledgeable classical theory guy will read that and be like “huh? How can you go V-I in Major and it’s a secondary dominant??? Makes zero sense”. Again he is assuming that these things are already common knowledge that simply follows from the logic of any music theory system. On the surface it sounds as if the guy just doesn’t know he is in A minor. Next he uses all capital letters to spell out the natural phrygian chord scale, except for the I chord which he describes as E major triad, using basic triads except for v which he writes out as the only 7th chord (m7b5, jazz guitar speak for half diminished). He justified the I chord as a footnote which points out, again, his “unstable third”. I am ok with the footnote, but the Roman numerals need to reflect chord quality...i or I, II, III, iv, vdim, VI, vii....and if you use 7ths for one chord, might as well include them for each chord because you are trying here to distinguish this chord scale from the ones that are used for harmonic analysis of normal western major or minor key tonal pieces. He is a doing a poor job of convincing someone that “flamenco mode” is somehow NOT the basic A minor key and he is simply in error at describing the chord scale. The “cadence” issue I addressed earlier. The convolution of andalusian “cadence” and the other “II-I” cadence, and the half cadence “I-II”...so it’s confusing a simple issue. The footnote gets at the reason for this confusion...the throwback once again to Ancient Greek tetra chords and it’s superficial resemblance to the “andalusian cadence” descending chord sequence...is it minor is it phrygian? What is it? Oh its Greek THAT’S it!!! Whatever sorry, NO it’s a non issue and we don’t need to justify “II-I” as a legitimate cadence by looking back at GREEK MODAL MUSIC, which was not harmonic anyway, it was freaking modal and never NEEDED to cadence. So he was on the right track there with II-I terminal value, but didn’t justify it with II7-I, the true equivalent of the V7-I he tried to compare it to. Next the “extensions” of the chords....talking 7ths and 9ths and such, at first he is describing in jazz fashion the types of chord voicing one would use in this “flamenco mode”. It looks exactly like the way one would teach setting up the chords of a “Modal vamp”...again possibly giving the wrong impression that flamenco is just vamping on a single modal scale. He further convoluted terminology as he names chords such as “F(b5)”, or “E(#5)”, which translate just fine for jazzers, but could confuse students with more classical background, or simply get the fact that the chords are in one key and therefore misspelled. Later there is a miss use of “sus4” for the Fmaj7#11....those two concepts are not interchangeable. First of all, “sus” implies the third is omitted in the voicing which I doubt he was specifically implying. Also jazz chords are spelled from major or Ionian base, so 4 can’t be implied to be # all of a sudden because of our new “flamenco mode” chord scale. “Sus#4” at LEAST would make some sense, but trapped in this limbo between jazz chord chart language and classical theory I feel it’s sort of expected of guitar students to not care much about mixing and matching terminology for any type of music. His end note there “whatever the extension...” I certainly hope he only meant the ones he shows above it, the modal vamp type, because there are some more that actually WILL take you or “lead to subsequent development”. In other words, an F7, F9, or F13, (as opposed to the Fmaj7#11) might take us not only to the terminal “E” tonic, but also can lead us to Bb major....a type of modulation, though not super common in the tradition, is totally “allowed” and used at times. We already discussed how the E7 can also be viewed as the preparatory “V” going to A minor....and in flamenco “mode” context is viewed as a secondary dominant move, NOT as a modulation to the relative minor, in most cases. In cante accompaniment this is emphasized by using the inversion E7/G# for example.
|
|
|
|