All I'm saying is that the 7 modes are
part of the major scale...period.
I don't need to know (or care to know) what mode I'm in, in order to play through the modes...I just need to know the key of the scale, as I find that to be the "key" information really needed.
The guys who want to focus on specifically playing within a mode(s) and nothing else...well, I guess they need to know and care about them.
I still don't think we're on the same page regarding modes, but I don't really seem to be able to explain what I mean. You seem to be saying that, since you know major and minor scales, and modes are just "parts of a scale," then you don't need to bother with them ... unless I'm misunderstanding you. I'm saying that I don't think that's right, but I can't seem to explain it, so I guess I'll just let it go.
AFA "creativity"...
You were saying that people who just follow the rules, the theory, often think they have to use the specific chord progressions defined by them....which implied that was somehow a hindrance to true creativity.
I'm saying using/knowing some theory is much less of a hindrance than it is when you're poking around until you accidentally stumble on a chord progression that the theory would have already defined...had you known it.
Again, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. Just because someone isn't knowledgeable about theory doesn't mean they only use trial and error or they luck into things. It can also (and many times does) mean that they simply don't know the
names for what they're doing, but they know how to do it. They may have a great ear and know what they want just without being able to name it.
Think about the English language, for instance. Lots of people are eloquent speakers and/or writers without knowing a great deal about grammar. (How many people can tell you what a past participle or a split infinitive is, for instance.) They simply know what
sounds right because of the time they spent reading/listening/etc. Would you argue that knowing all the rules of grammar would make it easier to write a novel? I certainly wouldn't. (I'm not saying it would make it harder either. I'm just saying that there's not a correlation, IMO.)
Take Paul McCartney. He claims to not have learned musical theory. (I'm sure he picked up bits and pieces over the years, but in the early days, he probably didn't know much.) But he did things in his songs that indicated he knew what he was doing---he knew the
sounds---even if he didn't know the "theory"---the names---behind it.
For example, in the bridge to "From Me to You," they use a minor v chord in the bridge: a Gm chord in the key of C. I remember seeing an interview with him where he talked about them figuring that out --- i.e., using a Gm chord in C. They did the same thing in "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," only in the key of G. So the minor v chord was a Dm.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think anyone can deny that McCartney has a hell of an ear. And even though he might not have known that it was a minor v chord --- or ... more specifically ... a ii chord in a secondary ii-V-I of the IV chord --- he clearly recognized the sound and was able to use it in different keys.
You may say, "Yes, but he certainly used trial and error to first discover that minor v chord." And that may very well be true. But learning theory takes time to do as well. So some people may choose to spend their time learning theory, while others may spend time learning what "sounds good" to them and learning how to acclimate it in their own internal way.
I mean ... there are
jazz greats who can't/couldn't read music or don't/didn't know any theory. There's no music more theory-heavy than jazz. But they had developed their ear to the point where they didn't need the names. They played and listened and played and listened and just internalized the sounds. They probably thought of things in their own terms. Sometimes when you hear those people talk, you can see evidence of this. They certainly don't "know theory" in that they couldn't tell you what notes are in a Bm7 chord, for instance, or they couldn't tell you what a III-VI-II-V progression in the key of F would be. But they could play all over that shit up and down.
I remember Clint Strong coming to a do a clinic for the guitar and bass club while I was at UNT. He was just a good ol' country boy who could barely tell you where a G was on the guitar neck, but when the band called out
any jazz standard, he could tear it up.
To be honest, it's hard for me to say whether knowing theory makes things easier. I've known a lot of theory for a long time now (music theory was my major in college), so I've kind of forgotten what not knowing it feels like. But ... when you consider that there are likely more great musicians---at least in the rock, blues, and jazz styles---that
don't know much theory than those who
do, can we really definitively say that knowing theory makes it easier to create (good) music? I sincerely don't know. I certainly believe that it's not a hindrance in any way, as some people claim it will be if they learn it. But I don't know that you can clearly say it's a great help either ... at least when it comes to creating music.
If you need to analyze the chords of a Bach chorale, then yeah, you need to know some theory.