@Kamikaze... I'll dig into some of that and get back to you. Just trying to get some production stuff done. However at first glance I'm just going to reiterate that you can switch from any mode to any mode on the same root note. If it sounds good do it. There are some guidelines that jazz folks adhere to but I'm a rock/metal/blues/punk/prog/folk player. For most of those styles I can just jam a stick right up the bum of any subjective and genre specific "rules". However once I finally sit down and do a proper jazz study I'll pay more credence to the "cadences" the jazz community have built up over the past century or so. Classical music also has rules/guidelines for composition/cadences that need to be studied to really "get it" but again it is subjective and (aside from the influence classical has had on contemporary music/music theory) genre specific.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I do not get too caught up in the specifics of HOW to break the modes/keys in various genres UNLESS I am maybe learning a song in a specific style/series of cadences. Then I'll dig in so I know a) what is going on and b) I know my playing options.
 
In fact I had to do a bit of that with some tracks I did with my friend Jarvse here because he was using a lot of classical style cadences/chord progressions. It was a fun challenge that taught me quite a bit. Actually let's see if we can get him to post some tips on classical style composition. :-)
 
@Jarvse... Hello Oyvind. It really would be cool if you gave a bit of a run down on how you wrote Kjerlighet and maybe post the song so folks can hear the chord progressions and all the crazy melodies you wrote (which I tried to play exactly as written but some parts were beyond my physical profiency so I had to compensate... lol).
 
Other than that I hope you are well and still playing/writing. Cheers!
 
@emeraldsoul... Ya, man. Absolutely. Once the band starts the song all bets are off and you just gotta play. That's why it's so useful to map/try out all this stuff at home and/or at band practice which sadly a lot of working players don't seem to do anymore. Then there is the "trial by fire" whereby you are on stage, you're up for a lead and if you can remember even ONE of the multiple things you tested out earlier you can do your job. If you only have ONE option and you choke... well then yer fiznuckered. Thus are the perils of live on the fly improvisations.
 
When you land it though it is trancsendental.
 
;-)

About my example….
 
The layout of the chords fallow an Octatonic scale, with whole, half, whole, half stc. steps. That is a dim chord mode, but the cords are not. They have not the 5th one step down. in fact, the notes used are just 5, 2 and 3. 1 is just in the back pads. This pattern are moved as they are, without any change. That makes is craving without any solution, feel wise. I love it.
 
The moral is, if you find something you think sound good, and it is some strange patterns, chord progressions, modes rule break, it is good. The rules are meant to be "broken". Of course someone will analyze it and give it the proper category or name. There is always a name. Maybe it then looses some of its magic? For others, it is great to know what you did to reproduce it. But don’t hold back creativity because you think you don’t have control and know what’s happening. your ear and taste is always your final judge about that. Music theory is more of how to reproduce that mode/sound/thing. You will need it. Especially when you gets stuck, or get a job to write something like "that" song. But don't hold back creativity till you get a degree of theory knowledge. Just let it flow.
 
Just my 2 c.

Beepster
@Kamikaze... I'll dig into some of that and get back to you. Just trying to get some production stuff done. However at first glance I'm just going to reiterate that you can switch from any mode to any mode on the same root note. If it sounds good do it. There are some guidelines that jazz folks adhere to but I'm a rock/metal/blues/punk/prog/folk player. For most of those styles I can just jam a stick right up the bum of any subjective and genre specific "rules". However once I finally sit down and do a proper jazz study I'll pay more credence to the "cadences" the jazz community have built up over the past century or so. Classical music also has rules/guidelines for composition/cadences that need to be studied to really "get it" but again it is subjective and (aside from the influence classical has had on contemporary music/music theory) genre specific.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I do not get too caught up in the specifics of HOW to break the modes/keys in various genres UNLESS I am maybe learning a song in a specific style/series of cadences. Then I'll dig in so I know a) what is going on and b) I know my playing options.
 
In fact I had to do a bit of that with some tracks I did with my friend Jarvse here because he was using a lot of classical style cadences/chord progressions. It was a fun challenge that taught me quite a bit. Actually let's see if we can get him to post some tips on classical style composition. :-)
 
@Jarvse... Hello Oyvind. It really would be cool if you gave a bit of a run down on how you wrote Kjerlighet and maybe post the song so folks can hear the chord progressions and all the crazy melodies you wrote (which I tried to play exactly as written but some parts were beyond my physical profiency so I had to compensate... lol).
 
Other than that I hope you are well and still playing/writing. Cheers!
 
@emeraldsoul... Ya, man. Absolutely. Once the band starts the song all bets are off and you just gotta play. That's why it's so useful to map/try out all this stuff at home and/or at band practice which sadly a lot of working players don't seem to do anymore. Then there is the "trial by fire" whereby you are on stage, you're up for a lead and if you can remember even ONE of the multiple things you tested out earlier you can do your job. If you only have ONE option and you choke... well then yer fiznuckered. Thus are the perils of live on the fly improvisations.
 
When you land it though it is trancsendental.
 
;-)

All of those are archived now. But i can se if i can do something.

Beepster
@Kamikaze... I'll dig into some of that and get back to you. Just trying to get some production stuff done. However at first glance I'm just going to reiterate that you can switch from any mode to any mode on the same root note. If it sounds good do it. There are some guidelines that jazz folks adhere to but I'm a rock/metal/blues/punk/prog/folk player. For most of those styles I can just jam a stick right up the bum of any subjective and genre specific "rules".
 

Modal interchange examples I see are being used in pop, rock soul disco, rather than Jazz. I think it's much mre accessible than jazz. But it seems from how yu have described things, you are down with modal interchange, you just don't call it that.
 
I'm also seeing 'Borrowed chords' being used, but I guess modal interchange expands on this by setting out what chord extensions you can use, and hw the other arts will harmonize.
 
Lovely Day - Bill Withers
We are family - Sister Sledge
Blame it f the Boogie - Micheal Jackson
 
 

Kamikaze

Beepster
@Kamikaze... I'll dig into some of that and get back to you. Just trying to get some production stuff done. However at first glance I'm just going to reiterate that you can switch from any mode to any mode on the same root note. If it sounds good do it. There are some guidelines that jazz folks adhere to but I'm a rock/metal/blues/punk/prog/folk player. For most of those styles I can just jam a stick right up the bum of any subjective and genre specific "rules".
 

Modal interchange examples I see are being used in pop, rock soul disco, rather than Jazz. I think it's much mre accessible than jazz. But it seems from how yu have described things, you are down with modal interchange, you just don't call it that.
 
I'm also seeing 'Borrowed chords' being used, but I guess modal interchange expands on this by setting out what chord extensions you can use, and hw the other arts will harmonize.
 
Lovely Day - Bill Withers
We are family - Sister Sledge
Blame it f the Boogie - Micheal Jackson
 
 

Well I understand exactly what you are referring to I just think you may be missing the broader point being made. That is that most somewhat technically advanced music is going to break the key/mode at some point. What I was saying is that in many styles/genres there are specific guidelines/methods to break those rules. Those methods are generally what give that style it's sound/feel.
 
All of that can be analyzed and defined using modal (and more classical style) theory.
 
It should also be noted that although this applies to other instruments it is particularly useful to guitar players because of the way it all lays itself over the fretboard giving us multiple options whilst playing. I'm pretty much leaning more on guitar theory here because I think that's what Starise and others are looking for.
 
For other instruments, although it is great to know this stuff, it might be better to interpret it all from the more traditional notation viewpoint. As in using the notation Staff and all the crazy math you can do there (that can be tossed onto any instrument) and focusing more on chord qualities via the Roman numeral naming system for chord steps.
 
There are so many ways to approach all of this and what I've detailed here is my own personal hyper reductionist approach that boils it right down to the basic math... then builds it back up to accomodate whatever is being solved/played.
 
Guitar in particular is a very oddball situation. Unlike other instruments where the notes are fixed and can be easily associated with the notation staff the guitar player has to a) lay out his own pattern on the fretboard and b) choose one of multiple positions on the fretboard too perform the exact same part. Then you have all the inversions and whatnot to choose from within those sub patterns/choices.
 
That said if you look through my posts in this thread I have posted enough raw data in sequence about modes and how to tie them into more classical style theory that it should be a hop skip and a jump onto any approach. It's just raw math and it never changes. NEVER. We just move it around and screw with it in different ways... but the math moves with those changes. It is inescapable... but can be ignored until needed.

I think you think I am trying to say something I am not. And your replies abut being mine posts being about jazz or yours focused on guitar technique just on different tracks from my posts. I don't think you are getting what I am talking about, and I don't think I am missing a broader points being made, and what I am taking abut isn't technically advanced, and is used in simple 4 bar pop songs. 
 
It seems one of those threads where the more the posters explains, the less they get each other.
 

That's the thing. I do understand exactly what you are saying. It's what I'm saying as well.
 
It's all part of the same mathematical equation. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.
 
Quite literally everything you are referencing falls under what I've been (perhaps poorly) attempting to convey here. I however am trying to show the very linear nature of the modes so people can maybe see it in all it's glory and muck around with it themselves without any preconceptions. You are showing examples of specific theories on how to manipulate the modes (and I do NOT like the one about flatting one note at a time... that's silly and more properly it should be viewed under the Circle of Fifths when doing that... not modes but they are related).
 
Seriously working through all the modes through all the keys following the Circle of Fifths in a linear manner (and learning all the root triads then 7th chords) reveals all. Once the ear, mind and body are familiar with it all then it becomes a simple matter of taking all these subjective ways of manipulating it all to varying effects applying the math over top of them.
 
There is a LOT of material out there about music theory. I've read tons of it. Most of it is weird, counterintuitive and never gets to the bleeding point (or it takes 20+ years to get to it which is ridiculous). This stuff is actually really easy. How it is traditionally taught is rubbish (IMO).
 
Cheers and sorry if I'm sounding like an arse. I just get frustrated at the unecessary roadblocks and detours that get put in front of people trying to learn.
 
 

Beepster
Okay, took another look. I get what you are doing now.
 
Your Amin chord is definitely A Dorian (and the relative Major G Ionian). So you got that "solved" (I keep using that word for a reason because it is literally "solving" a math problem) which is awesome.
 
My initial premise about the Amin/Bmin was more correct (I got confused thinking an F Maj chord was getting tossed in... which it is... kind of) so I guess ignore and/or glean something from my own logical error.
 
Your Bmin chord IS actually breaking the key but ONLY when you fret that natural F on the low E (or wherever). By doing that you are making your Bmin into a Bdim (diminished 5th) chord at that moment making it the root chord of the B Locrian mode (relative Major is C Major... one step above B).
 
There is also the possibility it can be viewed through the melodic and/or harmonic minor modes and how they shift and morph with the natural modes but then I really would have to take out some charts. lol
 
Hopefully all that made sense. Back to boring arse edits.
 
Cheers!

Beepster
BTW... if you tried to played the usually occurring "Perfect" 5th of your Bmin chord while adding that natural F note you will hear a very serious clashing.
 

Yeah, the flavor of that chord completely changes when I flat the 5th on the Bmin, and I do like the sound of that.  But I also like the sound of the perfect 5th on it, even though it's clashy.  Isn't that weird?  I strum the F on the low E, the B on the A string, and the F# on the D string, and just strum that to hear the essentials of that combination, the clash.  I try this in several places on the neck, up high, so I can get a good feel for it, and while I hear clashing, I still like it.  I almost view it as an effect, rather than musical.  
 
And that makes me question my musical sensibilities a bit.  Seriously, if that clashing can sound ok to me, then what is ever going to sound wrong?  I'm doomed.  Ha ha.  
 
 

Kamikaze
Immense posting Beep.
 
I found this video and after years of gathering musical information, it all came together. So many pennies dropped and loose ends tied together. 
 
(Walk That Bass video here)
 

 I have also watched a bunch of the "Walk That Bass" videos...a bit of a misnomer in that the site and videos are not at all specific to Bass playing. Check it out:
 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk24OnGLcP5XlTBjZ9WBWvw/videos
 
 

Voda La Void
 
Yeah, the flavor of that chord completely changes when I flat the 5th on the Bmin, and I do like the sound of that.  But I also like the sound of the perfect 5th on it, even though it's clashy.  Isn't that weird?  I strum the F on the low E, the B on the A string, and the F# on the D string, and just strum that to hear the essentials of that combination, the clash.  I try this in several places on the neck, up high, so I can get a good feel for it, and while I hear clashing, I still like it.  I almost view it as an effect, rather than musical.  
 
And that makes me question my musical sensibilities a bit.  Seriously, if that clashing can sound ok to me, then what is ever going to sound wrong?  I'm doomed.  Ha ha.  
 

I just picked up my guit to check on that chord (SONAR is ticking me off at the moment with some rando bug). Looks like that specific chord appears in F Locrian (and perhaps one of the Harmonic and/or Melodic minor modes which I did not check). So view it through the F Locrian lens when you hit that chord. The F actually (when viewed this way) can be considered the root, the B the diminished 5th of the Locrian mode and the F# is actually a minor 2nd (or in chord terms a minor 9th which is the same thing as a "2nd").
 
I'd consider that 2nd/9th a "suspension" that resolves to Root/Octave (F). When playing that chord alternate between that F# and F and you will likely hear the "tension and resolve" created by the suspension.
 
You are breaking the key for that chord though which is totally fine and I'm sure there is a specific cadence name for that movement.
 
F Locrian's relative Major is F# (or Gb because IIRC it is one of the keys that can be defined as either sharp or flat within the Circle of Fifths... I'd have to double check cuz it's been a while).
 
Anyway, don't worry. Your musical sensibilities are totally fine and I've used similar rule breaks to create dark tension for all sorts of material. It's obviously more of a metal/moody experimental jazz type sound but perfectly cromulent. :-)
 
Thing is it's IMPOSSIBLE to actually break the rules because the rules just readjust themselves to explain even the most (seemingly) nonsensical stuff.
 
Really modal/interval/chord theory as I've described it here is intended more as a tonal "yardstick" (I keep using that term but it really is a great way to look at it). You can remain within a key whilst not breaking any natural modal "rules" at all and write some great stuff.
 
However if you want to get freaky deaky you may always do so with abandon and not worry about the "rules" because no matter WHAT you do the math can "solve" it.
 
Look at a Slayer tune. Chromatic and skanked right the hell out intentionally BUT if one were so inclined they could take that atonal mess and solve it all... likely exposing moment by moment changes not just to the overall progression but within riffs.
 
I'm pretty good at solving this type of stuff in my mind but since I was constantly applying what I was learning to my instrument (guitar) I can solve keys/modes/chords far easier with my hands and ears. I find my root (or suspected root) and go through my options based on the notes already provided and extrapolate from there. I know the physical patterns so well and from all the scale practice by ear that it's easier for me to actually PLAY a part and solve it than on paper.
 
I think that is super important and kind of the point (if you are musician and not just a pure composer or theorist/teacher.. that's when you really need to have this stuff locked down).
 
Check out the chord progression in Jimi Hendrix' (and SRV's cover of) Little Wing. For the most part that progression sticks to E nat minor (relative Major G) but it breaks out if it at multiple points as the progression builds up culminating into those ultra skanky and atonal slidy chords that round out the progression.
 
That is similar to what is happening in your progression so I recommend goofing around with that tune to see what it shakes loose.
 
Cheers.