Parallel scales borrowed chords

[rbarata]

I have see this also from modes perspective, but some doubts came up.

Considering only the triads and modes formulas, and because I have only 3 chords (I, VII and IV), it could be G Dorian, G Phrygian, G Aeolian or G Locrian. I made a direct relation between scales degrees and chords, i.e., using modes formulas, we would have the characteristic chords:


Dorian: 1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7 => Bb and F chords

Phrygian: 1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 => Ab, Bb, Eb and Fchords

Lydian: 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7 => C# chord

Mixolydian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7 => F chord

Aeolian: 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 => Bb, Eb and F chords

Locrian: 1 b2 b3 4 b5 b6 b7 => Ab, Bb, Db, Eb and F chords

But it makes no sense to see things from this perspective because scales formulas apply to scales degrees. Even if we don't have all chords defined, they are implicitly defined because the 3 chords available contain all the scales notes.

So, it's Mixolydian.


And the F chord can't be considered a borrowed chord from a minor scale because if that was true, it would be borrowed from the A natural minor (but we "need" something in G minor).

Or applying minor scales formulas to the key of G we will get different notes from those we have in the chords.


Harmonic Minor Scale: 1 - 2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - b6 - 7 - 8 (G A Bb C D Eb F#)


Natural or Relative Minor Scale: 1 - 2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - b6 - b7 - 8 (G A Bb C D EB F)


Melodic Minor Scale: 1 - 2 - b3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 (G A Bb C D E F#)


I believe I'm thinking correctly.

[JonR]

Yes, but I can see it the FMaj/G as a G7 (I) or as a borrowed VII from the parallel Gmin scale.

It's ambiguous - could be either!

Without the G bass - in an assumed G major key - it's a bVII triad from a parallel scale or mode (G mixolydian, dorian or aeolian). (We'd only call it "parallel minor" because that's the most common source of any combination of bVII, bIII or bVI.)

With the G bass, it becomes a kind of partial G13sus4, which could be a mixolydian I.

As you have the pedal G bass across all 3 chords, I would say it's a mixolydian sequence, with a variety of upper harmonies - and not a lot of point in naming each chord, because any functional implications they have are largely irrelevant. If it's a modal piece (at least in classic "modal jazz"), the chords aren't "going" anywhere. You simply have three varieties of consonance/dissonance within one modal chord.

IOW, adding the G drone subverts (tho maybe not totally) the functional "progression" effect (I-bVII-IV-I) of the upper chords.

Without the G drone - as walter says - you have a very common "rock mixolydian" sequence. (I call it "rock mixolydian", because it's somewhat lazy about modal conventions; it tends to use triadic chords, and might add a major V - from ionian! - if it feels like it. In this case not, of course.)

Without the G, it's a kind of "double plagal cadence" - bVII being a "secondary subdominant". This is a very popular sound in rock. Whereas in jazz and classical they tend to favour the "secondary dominant" concept - so you might get (in key of G) A7-D7-G = V/V - V - I... in rock you tend to get F-C-G = IV/IV - IV - I. (Because it just sounds way cooler, right? )

Of course if we're going to look at it from a modal perspective, then we'd say it's pure G mixolydian, and F is not a "bVII", it's plain "VII", because we haven't flattened anything; F (or Fmaj7) is the natural VII chord in G mixolydian.

So much of this depends on one's perspective! We're only labelling stuff after all, not explaining anything. I hope you're not expecting music theory to explain anything (at least not beneath a very superficial level) - that's not what it's for! It's just a system of classification of sounds. (The latin names we give diseases don't explain the disease...)

Eg, from a "major key" perspective - if that's what we're expecting to hear - then the F chord will come as a surprise and we'll want to label it "flat seven". But if we're expecting mixolydian mode (and we might well be in rock or jazz), then the F is totally natural (in more ways than one ), and anything with F# in would sound odd.
Eg, if - after several G-F-C-G cycles - we came across a D, it would sound "borrowed from the parallel major".

In short - you name this stuff pretty much any way that helps you make sense of it yourself! That's the whole purpose of music theory - to stop us scratching our heads when we hear something that sounds right. To give us the illusion of "understanding"; to comfort us.
Naturally, in that venture, you would want to use conventional music theory terms, because it would not aid that illusion if you invented your own terms and then found other people named it all differently. That would make you uncomfortable all over again. You would think you were "wrong", and naturally you want to be "right". (But of course there is no right or wrong, fundamentally - only "helpful" or "unhelpful".)

That's why one solution (much favoured in the rock, folk and blues worlds) is to just relax and not worry about it. Hey, it sounds good, what's the problem?

[rbarata]

Eg, if - after several G-F-C-G cycles - we came across a D, it would sound "borrowed from the parallel major".

I didn't understood this one... Please clarify.

In short - you name this stuff pretty much any way that helps you make sense of it yourself! That's the whole purpose of music theory - to stop us scratching our heads when we hear something that sounds right. To give us the illusion of "understanding"; to comfort us.

Well, but since this depends on each one of us perspective, this is the perfect scenario to raise a discussion.

So much of this depends on one's perspective! We're only labelling stuff after all, not explaining anything. I hope you're not expecting music theory to explain anything (at least not beneath a very superficial level) - that's not what it's for! It's just a system of classification of sounds. (The latin names we give diseases don't explain the disease...)

But the possibility to have a dual labelling "system" based on each one's perspective is not very helpfull... at least, is prone to confusion.

I remember an episode when I was younger and I had a discussion with a band mate. I made a song and when he heard it he said that the song in fact was not a song, but two songs mixed. To me he was not right because to me it was one song only (and it sounded good). But because he was a conservatory music student I didn't entered into a discussion with him. I believe his oppinion was that because he was a guy who accepted the rules used by the classical composers.

[walternewton]

If you look at it from a G major (which has an F# note) perspective, the F chord is "borrowed".

If you look at it from a G mixolydian (which has an F note) perspective, the F chord is built from the notes of the mode but a D chord (which contains an F# note) is not and could be looked at as "borrowed".

[rbarata]

If you look at it from a G major (which has an F# note) perspective, the F chord is "borrowed".

If you look at it from a G mixolydian (which has an F note) perspective, a D chord (which contains an F# note) would be "borrowed".

Right! It's one of the "mechanisms" that originates altered chords.