Question about Intervals

[Sascha Franck]

Dorian is not a scale itself.

Well, in fact it kind of is, at least historically. But yeah, that very ancient music we kind of refer to when it comes to modes was something entirely different.
In modern music, it'd actually be a good idea to finally treat modes as their own entities (obviously while still being aware that they're a kind of "byproduct" of (mainly) major scales), simply because there's many tunes actually using them as tonic centers.

This is getting really bad when you consider notation. Think about "Oye Como Va" (Santana), possibly *the* poster child for the dorian mode. Goes Am7, D7 all throughout. So, to avoid dealing with tons of sharps for that F you'd usually think "ah ok, it's A dorian, hence G major, so let's use that as a key signature" - just this ain't happening, and if you were coming up with it by yourself, it'd certainly get you more than just some looks from whomever you'd be asking to play your sheet.
So, as Am is the tonal center of the tune, in case it's written down on a sheet, you'd be using Am as a key signature. And as a result, you'd use a sharp for each and every F to show up as you want it to be an F#. Quite stupid, really - but to this day, nobody has ever taken any serious attempts of adressing that issue. Could for example be like using the key signature of G but adding a certain index ("A dor" would already be sufficient). Just that it will never ever happen.

Personally, I think framing “Dorian is minor” is limiting

Why do you think it's limiting? That's neither rethoric nor snarky or anything, I'm genuinely interested (because I certainly feel it's minor).
Fwiw, I often use dorian as one of some more "tools" to play over a minor context (very often aeolian, melodic minor and sometimes harmonic minor would work almost as well) - but it's always minor to me.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Well, in fact it kind of is, at least historically. But yeah, that very ancient music we kind of refer to when it comes to modes was something entirely different.
In modern music, it'd actually be a good idea to finally treat modes as their own entities (obviously while still being aware that they're a kind of "byproduct" of (mainly) major scales), simply because there's many tunes actually using them as tonic centers.

This is getting really bad when you consider notation. Think about "Oye Como Va" (Santana), possibly *the* poster child for the dorian mode. Goes Am7, D7 all throughout. So, to avoid dealing with tons of sharps for that F you'd usually think "ah ok, it's A dorian, hence G major, so let's use that as a key signature" - just this ain't happening, and if you were coming up with it by yourself, it'd certainly get you more than just some looks from whomever you'd be asking to play your sheet.
So, as Am is the tonal center of the tune, in case it's written down on a sheet, you'd be using Am as a key signature. And as a result, you'd use a sharp for each and every F to show up as you want it to be an F#. Quite stupid, really - but to this day, nobody has ever taken any serious attempts of adressing that issue. Could for example be like using the key signature of G but adding a certain index ("A dor" would already be sufficient). Just that it will never ever happen.



Why do you think it's limiting? That's neither rethoric nor snarky or anything, I'm genuinely interested (because I certainly feel it's minor).
Fwiw, I often use dorian as one of some more "tools" to play over a minor context (very often aeolian, melodic minor and sometimes harmonic minor would work almost as well) - but it's always minor to me.

Limiting may not be the right word. By focusing on “oh, it’s minor” it kind of ignores the whole point of playing Dorian rather than…just aeolian. The point of Dorian rather than aeolian or minor pentatonic or whatever IS that major 6th (which, to my ear absolutely has a “major” sound to it compared to a minor 6, and is why I said just calling it “minor” feels limiting - its a way to bring a brighter sound to playing over a minor chord)

 

[Sascha Franck]

Limiting may not be the right word. By focusing on “oh, it’s minor” it kind of ignores the whole point of playing Dorian rather than…just aeolian. The point of Dorian rather than aeolian or minor pentatonic or whatever IS that major 6th (which, to my ear absolutely has a “major” sound to it compared to a minor 6, and is why I said just calling it “minor” feels limiting - its a way to bring a brighter sound to playing over a minor chord)

Ok, understood. I just don't make that distinction myself (but I do of course agree on the 6 resulting in a brighter character compared to the b6).

 

[Eagle]

Limiting may not be the right word. By focusing on “oh, it’s minor” it kind of ignores the whole point of playing Dorian rather than…just aeolian. The point of Dorian rather than aeolian or minor pentatonic or whatever IS that major 6th (which, to my ear absolutely has a “major” sound to it compared to a minor 6, and is why I said just calling it “minor” feels limiting - its a way to bring a brighter sound to playing over a minor chord)

The word minor only refers to the 3rd . What about melodic minor in one directions ( jazz minor?) . Natural minor sounds very classical but not always the minor vibe you need. Same with Harmonic minor. I use the modes in harmonic minor far more.
Dorian is my default minor scale.

 

[TSJMajesty]

One thing about this topic is there are different ways we name something, yet mean the same thing.

I consider "dorian" to be a mode of the major scale, moreso than calling it a "scale" itself, because for example, if you were referring to A minor, if you're calling it a scale, you would say, 'A minor scale.' But, if you're talking in the context of modes, you'd call it A Aeolian mode.

So there's a slight difference when referring to 'scales', vs. 'modes.' As I see it.

And here's a great lesson on naming conventions of intervals. He makes a short distinction near the end re the difference between 'intervals' and 'scale degrees.' Which is also important to understand, maybe even more so, wrt to theory and writing music.

 

[Eagle]

I don’t really care about naming conventions except to describe it to others but I think it’s important to use modes in context to the root your playing them against same as any other scale.

 

[Sascha Franck]

In fact, interval naming is pretty irrelevant outside of chord names.
I mean, how often do you really need to determine what the interval between E and C# is called? I never (!) need that. As a result of that, it's a waste of time to put much energy into it.
Yes, you need to know how to add, say, a 13th to a chord. But you won't be counting one octave plus another 8 semitones to get there. That's just not how we memorize these things.
We also don't exactly build scales following their interval structure. "Oh, now I need to move my finger to the sharp 4th" doesn't exactly exist.
As a result of that, absolute interval names aren't exactly relevant. In practical use, they are largely only important when dealing with chords, and for those, you need to know the interval names in relation to their function.

I consider "dorian" to be a mode of the major scale, moreso than calling it a "scale" itself

In fact, it's both.

 

[unix-guy]

In fact, interval naming is pretty irrelevant outside of chord names.
I mean, how often do you really need to determine what the interval between E and C# is called?

You never harmonize single note parts?

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

You never harmonize single note parts?

That gets back to the entire reason we went down this discussion path. Harmonizing a melody line involves creating a series of typically different intervals. Sure, you may say “harmonize in 6ths” but what you wind up laying is a series of major and minor 6th intervals.

 

[Eagle]

I call natural minor Aeolian because it’s the same set of modes from a different point as the major and all the fingerboard shapes are the same.
Function is more than just chords though so it’s important to use modal harmony in your improvisation . Knowing the intervals instantly by sound is imperative imo for improvisation. I used to practice interval scales. Try it , it’s a good rut buster . Run through C with every other note up a fifth. So play C G D A and so on. Then do all the other intervals in the same pattern. You gain the sound of any interval as well as being comfortable to jump around from any note in any position.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I call natural minor Aeolian because it’s the same set of modes from a different point as the major and all the fingerboard shapes are the same.
Function is more than just chords though so it’s important to use modal harmony in your improvisation . Knowing the intervals instantly by sound is imperative imo for improvisation. I used to practice interval scales. Try it , it’s a good rut buster . Run through C with every other note up a fifth. So play C G D A and so on. Then do all the other intervals in the same pattern. You gain the sound of any interval as well as being comfortable to jump around from any note in any position.

…except if you “run through C” with every note up a fifth, you eventually wind up with a pesky non diatonic F#…

 

[Eagle]

…except if you “run through C” with every note up a fifth, you eventually wind up with a pesky non diatonic F#…

play it diatonic according to the scale it’s modal harmony you’re practicing here.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

play it diatonic according to the scale it’s modal harmony you’re practicing here.

Right. Which is different than intervals, which are objective differences between two notes irrespective of the scale or mode. See title of thread and OP.

OP if you are still reading: if you do what you did in the OP, I.e. harmonize the major scale, by playing a note of the scale a note two degrees up, you get a series of intervals, some of which are major 3rds, others of which are minor 3rds. So people describe this as “harmonizing the major scale in 3rds”.

But an interval is just an objective, agnostic-to-scale/mode/key/whatever, distance between two notes. There are lots of synonymous words that can be used to name each distance (minor/flat/diminished), but that’s not terribly relevant to your question.

 

[jay mitchell]

Think about "Oye Como Va" (Santana), possibly *the* poster child for the dorian mode. Goes Am7, D7 all throughout. So, to avoid dealing with tons of sharps for that F you'd usually think "ah ok, it's A dorian, hence G major, so let's use that as a key signature" - just this ain't happening, and if you were coming up with it by yourself, it'd certainly get you more than just some looks from whomever you'd be asking to play your sheet.

Tell that to Bach. His Sonata No. 1 in G minor is notated with one flat, i.e., in F, rather than with two flats - Bb - as you suggest. I'm not sure that that's notationally any more compact, but it's how he chose to notate it.

FWIW, any song with any tonal center may be written with any key signature and any time signature. While it is common practice to notate with a key signature that designates the tonal center, that still leaves ambiguity between major and relative minor, since both use the same key signature. For that matter, some compositions would have so many accidentals in any key that they are written enharmonically with no key signature.

 

[Eagle]

Right. Which is different than intervals, which are objective differences between two notes irrespective of the scale or mode. See title of thread and OP.

OP if you are still reading: if you do what you did in the OP, I.e. harmonize the major scale, by playing a note of the scale a note two degrees up, you get a series of intervals, some of which are major 3rds, others of which are minor 3rds. So people describe this as “harmonizing the major scale in 3rds”.


But an interval is just an objective, agnostic-to-scale/mode/key/whatever, distance between two notes. There are lots of synonymous words that can be used to name each distance (minor/flat/diminished), but that’s not terribly relevant to your question.

An interval is relative to a major scale first, I get it but this is an exercise in modal harmony. You are essentially playing mode 1 and 5 together.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

An interval is relative to a major scale first, I get it but this is an exercise in modal harmony. You are essentially playing mode 1 and 5 together.

No. An interval has nothing to do with a scale. A major 3rd interval describes two notes that are two whole steps apart. Period.

 

[Eagle]

No. An interval has nothing to do with a scale. A major 3rd interval describes two notes that are two whole steps apart. Period.

And this is relative to the major scale which is the reference in all music theory.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

And this is relative to the major scale which is the reference in all music theory.

if I play a D and the F above it, I am playing a minor 3rd interval.

It could part of the C major scale. It could be part of the F major scale. It could be part of a D major blues. Or I could just playing some janky outside something or other. But in every instance, regardless of the key, scale, mode, whatever, the interval I just played is called a minor 3rd or a flat 3rd or a diminished 3rd, and those two notes are still 1.5 steps apart. In that regard, the only scale intervals have a relation to is the chromatic scale.

The naming convention might have some relation to the major or minor scale, but the intervals themselves do not.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Interval naming really

You never harmonize single note parts?

Very often even. But I don't need to know any interval names for that at all.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Tell that to Bach. His Sonata No. 1 in G minor is notated with one flat, i.e., in F, rather than with two flats - Bb - as you suggest. I'm not sure that that's notationally any more compact, but it's how he chose to notate it.

Oh, that's interesting, didn't know that.