Modes and keys

[BottomEndian]

If someone said to me, "Write out a basic rock'n'roll-style 12-bar blues bassline in E", I'd think, "OK, E major, four sharps," and write it out with four sharps and accidentals on the D-naturals (blues being based around dominant seventh chords).

But recently I've been seeing blues-style basslines (and other things based around dominant sevenths) written with, for example, three sharps for a blues in E. I see the thinking in this: blues is based on dominant sevenths, and the simplest mode for dominant sevenths is the Mixolydian. So a blues in E is really a blues in E Mixolydian. In fact, I've seen this at the top of some transcriptions: "Key: E Mixolydian", followed by three sharps because E Mixolydian is the mode on the fifth degree of the A major scale (three sharps).

I've rushed off a couple of examples; the first is how [b]I'd[/b] write that "basic rock'n'roll-style 12-bar blues bassline in E", and under the big black line is the same line with three sharps:

Obviously the line's the same. But the problem is that, for me, "three sharps = key of A major or F-sharp minor", and I'd expect something written with three sharps to have a tonal centre of A (or F-sharp if it's minor). Blues in E doesn't.

To me (and this may well stem from years of ABRSM theory based on the classical repertoire), the key signature is dictated by the tonal centre (tonic, whatever, call it what you will) and whether the third degree is major or minor. So if something was based around D Dorian, I'd see D and F, call it D minor (one flat) and stick accidentals on all the B-naturals. Even with something like A Locrian, I'd look at A and C, call it A minor (no sharps or flats) and litter the score with B-flats and E-flats.

Is my position sensible, or do I need to shift my perception?

EDIT: Or, to put the question more concisely, does a key signature tell you only the sharps and flats, or does it convey more information?

Edited January 23, 2010 by BottomEndian

[Doddy]

Writing it in A major and starting on the 5th degree is a little neater because of fewer accidentals,
but pretty much every chart I've been given has been written in E major with the accidentals
written(D natural in this case).Consequently,I'd write the chart in E major-for me it makes it a little simpler,
because I never really look at blues modally-I prefer to approach them chordally.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Doddy' post='722198' date='Jan 23 2010, 02:38 PM']Writing it in A major and starting on the 5th degree is a little neater because of fewer accidentals,
but pretty much every chart I've been given has been written in E major with the accidentals
written(D natural in this case).Consequently,I'd write the chart in E major-for me it makes it a little simpler,
because I never really look at blues modally-I prefer to approach them chordally.[/quote]
Yeah, maybe blues was a bad example. How about something like [i]Sledgehammer[/i]? If you [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=39474"]click here[/url] you should get a transcription that someone posted on here a few weeks back. Putting aside the fact it's a semitone higher than the recording, after the E-minor intro the verse is written in E Mixolydian, so three sharps. I've always heard this song as being in E major (well, E-flat major, but... y'know ), so that just looks really odd to me. It does mean they can get away with the same key signature through the chorus too, where I would've switched from four sharps to three (F-sharp minor).

To me, if you need to whack accidentals on the flattened sevenths, it draws attention to them as flattened sevenths, thus highlighting the nature of the harmony.

[Doddy]

Again,writing the chart in A major cleans up the chart because of fewer accidentals and makes it
simpler to read,but I'd have probably written it in E major and written the D naturals as accidentals.

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Doddy' post='722236' date='Jan 23 2010, 03:22 PM']Again,writing the chart in A major cleans up the chart because of fewer accidentals and makes it
simpler to read,but I'd have probably written it in E major and written the D naturals as accidentals.[/quote]
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone.

[XB26354]

As Doddy says, the key in both cases would be considered E major, with the D♮ written as an accidental.
Writing an E blues with an A key signature would be confusing, as it makes E7 look like a V7 chord, instead of being a I7 chord.
Note also that on the V7 chord (B7), when writing in A major there needs to be a D# accidental, which would be included in the E major key signature.
In any case the IV chord (A7) wouldn't fit either key signature as it has a G natural!
The Blues is really an exceptional case as it is based entirely around dominant 7th chords, but the key remains the same as there is a root note and a major triad present. In jazz lead sheets (where chords can go all over the place) the key usually refers to the melody.

[Major-Minor]

The standard thinking on this is to write the key signature that you would expect ie a Bb blues would have 2 flats as in Bb major.
But in truth a blues is not in a "key" in the standard way of thinking, as every chord is a dominant 7th (in the simple basic blues form) and there is no final resolution to a stable tonic triad. The whole basis of the blues "feel" (and much jazz and rock) is the instability of the Dominant harmony which never fully resolves.
We always refer to the "home" tonality (Bb in my example above) as being the key of the blues and to do otherwise simply confuses the accepted norm. If the bandleader calls out "Blues in A" but actually expects E7 as the first chord of the sequence, mayhem will follow !

BottomEndian - I understand completely where you are coming from on this, but there is an accepted way of doing this and I don't think its a good idea to try to change the world !

The Major

[Bilbo]

Agreed, Major.

If anyone calls a blues in Eb, Bb, F, C or anything else,. the default position is the first chord being a dom7 with the root stated. So a blues 'in F' starts on F7. In reallty, this is just a bastardisation of the fact that and 'F blues' and a 'Blues in F' are the same but a tune 'in the key of F' is a different kettle of fish. It is the difference between 'classical' theory and 'jazz' theory.

If I am transcribing, like Doddy, I would use the key signature of the 'parent' key i.e. the F in an F blues, using an accidental on the Eb.

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='734746' date='Feb 4 2010, 08:51 AM']It is the difference between 'classical' theory and 'jazz' theory.[/quote]
As I've said before on this forum, music theory is .. erm .... music theory.

I agree that if you go back in music history, you will find different sets of standards and accepted ways of doing things during different periods of music's development.

I think we accept these days that every possible permutation of notes and rhythms has been tried over the last few hundred years, and that there are no longer any rules in music composition and performance. However, each genre of music has particular features that give it it's particular flavour.

In the world of jazz, we use a template for improvisation (the chord sequence). In most cases this template is quite simple, and quite rightly so, as this helps all the players stay on track. The harmonic basis for these sequences is often a distillation of harmony prevalent in the "straight" music world prior to the development of jazz as we know it today.

The big difference between the "classical" (as in 18th/19th century music) and "jazz" approaches is really more to do with rhythm and in particular, syncopation.

When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, classical musos were often referred to as being "square". I don't think I fully understood this term at the time, but now I can see what this meant. If you listen to Haydn Bach and Mozart for instance, you will rarely hear detailed syncopation (off beat accents) - they do exist of course, but they are not common. The music often feels "4 square" - nothing wrong with that of course, but to our ears today, it seems they were missing a trick. But of course they were restricted by the accepted standards of the day, and it took people like Beethoven and Berlioz to push the boundaries. By the time you get to Stravinsky and Schoenberg, all the old rules had been swept away, and nowadays we can listen to The Rite Of Spring without flinching.

The development of music theory is at a point now where it is simply a means of communication from one muso to another, from composer to performer, from producer to session player etc etc.

I believe it is a backward step to create divisions between music styles - we are all in one big music world, especially now that we have the internet to draw us all together. We can all learn from each other as long as we try to speak and read the same music language.

The Major

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='734808' date='Feb 4 2010, 10:05 AM']As I've said before on this forum, music theory is .. erm .... music theory.[/quote]

Agreed: that was why I put it in quotes. I long ago recognised that the concept of a piece being in a 'key' was potentially problematic in more complex music forms and particularly where jazz was concerned. A lot of jazz, particularly post-Parker/Coltrane stuff, moves through several keys over the course of one chorus. A 12-bar blues usually covers at least 3 key centres (depending on the specific changes). So, placing a key signature at the start of a transcription and keeping it there is not as simple as it might be in some of the little etudes you see in F. Simandl etc. As MM says, its all about understanding the industry standard imterpretations of terminology. A lot of this is genre specific and, if you are goign to do Nashville sessions, you will need a different slant than if you are doing a pantomime in Blackpool. I guess its like spelling in UK ENglish vs US English: its nearly the same but there are differences that will catch the unwary.

Fundamentally, howver, its the noises that matter

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='734844' date='Feb 4 2010, 10:38 AM']there are differences that will catch [b]the unwary[/b].[/quote]
That's me. Just enough knowledge to be dangerous!

[originalfunkbrother]

Just listening to Major makes my day!