Originally Posted by: dlwalke

1) Is it generally true that when you borrow a chord from another mode you are substituting a chord (from the new mode) with the same root or position as you would otherwise play if you were using the diatonic chord?[/quote][p]Not really. I've never been a fan of the term borrowed in this context because it seems to imply something that has nothing to do with the concept. But it's part of our musical vocabulary, so I grudgingly accept it. :)

One possible misunderstanding is exactly what you asked. If we are "borrowing" shouldn't we have to give it back? Or replace it with a similar item?

No, it simply means you can use any non-key signature chord you like the sound of. Or that you can use any chord that is not part of the current key you are using. And note that even if we are using a non-key signature chord we still identify it with a Roman numeral with reference to the root. It's simply a non-key signature chord.

The entire reason we use key signatures in the first place is not a set of rules on what you can use or not. It is simply for conceptual clarity & perceptual ease of understanding what we are playing. And this helps us easily identify chords in the key as well as non-key signature chords.

Originally Posted by: dlwalke2) My understanding is that borrowed chords are fleeting.[/quote]

Yes. And if you get more than one borrowed chord, and those chords are related to each other in a different key, then you have a modulation. Typically a ii-V type of thing as a secondary sub-dominant to dominant voice motion.

Originally Posted by: dlwalkeIf you borrow more than a single chord, it starts to be more appropriately thought of as a key change.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote=dlwalke]If that's the case, why say that you are borrowing from any particular mode?

Again, this is why I don't like the term. It has the potential to lead to conceptual confusion instead of clarity.

But to address your point, the reason you say you are borrowing from a specific mode is due to the entire system used in the context of the music.

[quote=dlwalke]Why not just say that you tare playing a non-diatonic chord that for whatever reasons works well in a particular spot.

Well, you can. But please take note of the actual reason: you like the sound of that chord, regardless of the key signature. And this is very important to remember as you consider music theory ideas. The music, the sound, is primary. Theory only exists to help us conceptually organize the sounds. We do not use theory to discover how things sound. We use theory to mentally classify the sounds that happen in music.

[quote=dlwalke]For example, if you use a bVII instead of a vii-dim when playing in a major (Ionian) scale, you can say that you are borrowing it from the Dorian mode, but you could also say that you are borrowing it from the Mixolydian mode or the natural minor mode (i.e., since they all have VII chords) or, I would think, that you are not borrowing it at all but just playing an out of key chord?

That would depend on the wider context. Generally it helps to consider how much the original key signature has in common with the borrowed chord.

In your example, you are staring in a major key, right? That has a major 3rd. And if you use a flat VII, then I would say it is borrowed from mixolydian because it's the closest to your reference point, the original major key. They have all the same scale degrees with only one exception: minor 7th instead of major 7th.

Dorian might also have a flat VII, but also has a minor 3rd. Natural minor has a flat VII, but also has a minor 3rd & minor 6th. They have less in common with major. So, using those mode as your "borrowed" reference makes things less clear. Saying mixolydian is more efficient & add clarity.

Make sense?