We have scales but why??

[fmr]

To "Arrested Developer" and JumpingJackFlash":
Yes, I know the names have spreaded since the publication of the treaty by Boethius. But we know how those late middle age and early renaissance theoreticians worked, and how misinformed they were. At They pretended that everything civilized came from Greece. Actually, the modes had more to do with the judaic temple tradition than with the greek music. And it was earlier that some other tehoreticians started to point those mistakes. But the error persisted in some countires (more on those that were more apart of the catholic church).
Composers, however, AFAIK, never used those terms, instead they used very simpler designations as "first tone" for the mode stat starts in D, third tone (or second tone) for the mode that starts in E, fifth tone (or third tone) for the mode that starts in F and seventh tone (or fourth tone) for the mode that starts in G. When they use the eigth tones numbers, Second, Fourth, Sixth and Eight tones designate the plagis ones.
Some theoreticians also used the terms Protus, Deuterus, Tritus and Tetrardus, for the modes, which are nothing more than the latin words for first, second, third and fourth. More on this here: http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/modes.htm or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonary or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant
The first link contains even an explanation why the Boethius designations, while incorrect, have been so spreaded in anglo-saxonic countries.
And no, Arrested Developer, it's not more practical, because it's simply wrong, and no, JumpingJackFlash, ot hasn't been like that ever since.
However, since people are using the whole concept wrongly, confusing modes with scales, mixing everything with tonality and chord progressions, I guess nowadays is an everything goes system. But we will reach nowhere with these "theories" because they are based in wrong concepts, which, in themselves, come already from other wrong concepts (that's why, I guess, everybody has such hard times when trying to teach these. Fortunately, musicians usually don't give a damn about theory, and just go make music, sometimes even without being aware why things work. It's just people who study these things that care, I guess.
And "ionian" and "aeolic" although "proposed" in the work Arreted Developer named, were never used, because they had no place in the system. They were like the vast majority of Leonardo da Vinci inventions - never left out of the books.

[Arrested Developer]

And "ionian" and "aeolic" although "proposed" in the work Arreted Developer named, were never used, because they had no place in the system. They were like the vast majority of Leonardo da Vinci inventions - never left out of the books.

Well, they were used in the baroque. As Spitta writes in the 2nd part of his Bach-book, Johann Ph. Kirnberger manually classified some preludes and fugues of the WTC (in his exemplar) as "ionian", "aeolian", "mixolydian" and "dorian".

Anyhow, with the [greek] names of the modal scales it's a bit like with the word "onanism". We all know that they base on a misunderstanding, but since we know this it's no problem to use them according to the convention.
I think it's a much bigger problem to call "modal" music "tonal" just because it uses cadences and alterations, since that's a point of view that neglects historical facts on a substantial level (and not on a "formalistic" one, like wrong names).

[fmr]

And "ionian" and "aeolic" although "proposed" in the work Arreted Developer named, were never used, because they had no place in the system. They were like the vast majority of Leonardo da Vinci inventions - never left out of the books.

Well, they were used in the baroque. As Spitta writes in the 2nd part of his Bach-book, Johann Ph. Kirnberger manually classified some preludes and fugues of the WTC (in his exemplar) as "ionian", "aeolian", "mixolydian" and "dorian".

Interesting. Can you point me to the work? And perhaps give me some quotes, to look for the preludes in question.
Anyway, I very much doubt J S Bach would agree with such classifications. He had a very strong tonal thinking, the WTC books are, in themselves, works to show how we could achieve to write compositions in all the "new" tonalities using the then newest well tempered system (which Kirnberger, himself, shouldn't be an adept, because he had his own temperament - I am just assuming, not stating, since I am not familiar with his work) and these classifications may not be what you (and/or the author) think they are. Does he (the author) states he agrees with those classifications?

[fmr]

Anyhow, with the [greek] names of the modal scales it's a bit like with the word "onanism". We all know that they base on a misunderstanding, but since we know this it's no problem to use them according to the convention.
I think it's a much bigger problem to call "modal" music "tonal" just because it uses cadences and alterations, since that's a point of view that neglects historical facts on a substantial level (and not on a "formalistic" one, like wrong names).

OK, this is a friendly exchange of ideas, and I think we'll agree to disagree on that. The problem, IMO, is not in using wrong names, is in the fact that vast majority, contrary to what you say, DON'T know they are wrong.
And even worse than to call "modal" music "tonal" is to call "tonal" music "modal", as I have seen in lots of books, and even here on KVR, or just mixing concepts in a rather confusing way (to me, but I may be seeing things wrong).
People are treating modes as "scales", without realizing they are not scales.

[JumpingJackFlash]

People are treating modes as "scales", without realizing they are not scales.

I do see your point.
However, there are two problems. Firstly, according to some definitions, a mode is a type of scale (as in, a progressive sequence of notes), and secondly, a key is a type of mode (major mode and minor mode). - It's no wonder the issue often leads to confusion.

It is of course important to recognise the difference between modality and tonality (and of course, other approaches which fall into neither category).

[Arrested Developer]

Interesting. Can you point me to the work? And perhaps give me some quotes, to look for the preludes in question.
Anyway, I very much doubt J S Bach would agree with such classifications. He had a very strong tonal thinking, the WTC books are, in themselves, works to show how we could achieve to write compositions in all the "new" tonalities using the then newest well tempered system (which Kirnberger, himself, shouldn't be an adept, because he had his own temperament - I am just assuming, not stating, since I am not familiar with his work) and these classifications may not be what you (and/or the author) think they are. Does he (the author) states he agrees with those classifications?

Johann Ph. Kirnberger was a direct pupil of J. S. Bach. He mentions Bach use of "old scales" e. g. in his book "Die Kunst des reinen Satzes" (2 part, ). It's very hard to find this second part in German and i doubt there is an english translation.
Also Johann Forkel, who wrote the very first book about J. S. Bach mentions the importance that Bach saw in the "old scales. See: Forkel, Über Johann S. Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802)
The other source: Johann Spitta, J. S. Bach, 2nd book, see p. 603 ff. (in the german version)

You find the "modal influences" in his music on different levels: lots of choral harmonisations are directly modal (and have e.g. phrygian cadences), The use of the flat seventh (Bb in C-major) is very often a heritage from the mixolydian (this is mentioned e. g. from Kirnberger). (The prelude 1 in the WTC2 has very clearl mixolydian influences)
The "dorian" mode (also called "primo tono") is extremely important in Bachs music, some pieces in minor have even a dorian signature.
Then it is to mention that the influence of modal scales can often be seen in the use of tonal regions and in details in the modulations.
In the major key, the region of the ii-degree (dorian region) is extremely important. (and it's very clearly not used as a "substitute of the subdominant".

to the well tempered systems: they are mostly similar to each other (in the way Werckmeister used them):
basically, you have five fifths that are too small: c-g-d-a-e, which has the effect that the third between c-e is nearly 4:5. the other fifths are pure (2:3): e-h-f#-c#-g#-d#/es-b-f.
That's the version Bach probably used (according to Kellner), but keep in mind that probably he used different variations.
The WTC wasn't against modality, rather "against" the meantone temperament

best regards,
AD

[fmr]

Interesting. Can you point me to the work? And perhaps give me some quotes, to look for the preludes in question.
Anyway, I very much doubt J S Bach would agree with such classifications. He had a very strong tonal thinking, the WTC books are, in themselves, works to show how we could achieve to write compositions in all the "new" tonalities using the then newest well tempered system (which Kirnberger, himself, shouldn't be an adept, because he had his own temperament - I am just assuming, not stating, since I am not familiar with his work) and these classifications may not be what you (and/or the author) think they are. Does he (the author) states he agrees with those classifications?

Johann Ph. Kirnberger was a direct pupil of J. S. Bach. He mentions Bach use of "old scales" e. g. in his book "Die Kunst des reinen Satzes" (2 part, ). It's very hard to find this second part in German and i doubt there is an english translation.
Also Johann Forkel, who wrote the very first book about J. S. Bach mentions the importance that Bach saw in the "old scales. See: Forkel, Über Johann S. Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802)
The other source: Johann Spitta, J. S. Bach, 2nd book, see p. 603 ff. (in the german version)

You find the "modal influences" in his music on different levels: lots of choral harmonisations are directly modal (and have e.g. phrygian cadences), The use of the flat seventh (Bb in C-major) is very often a heritage from the mixolydian (this is mentioned e. g. from Kirnberger). (The prelude 1 in the WTC2 has very clearl mixolydian influences)
The "dorian" mode (also called "primo tono") is extremely important in Bachs music, some pieces in minor have even a dorian signature.
Then it is to mention that the influence of modal scales can often be seen in the use of tonal regions and in details in the modulations.
In the major key, the region of the ii-degree (dorian region) is extremely important. (and it's very clearly not used as a "substitute of the subdominant".

to the well tempered systems: they are mostly similar to each other (in the way Werckmeister used them):
basically, you have five fifths that are too small: c-g-d-a-e, which has the effect that the third between c-e is nearly 4:5. the other fifths are pure (2:3): e-h-f#-c#-g#-d#/es-b-f.
That's the version Bach probably used (according to Kellner), but keep in mind that probably he used different variations.
The WTC wasn't against modality, rather "against" the meantone temperament

best regards,
AD

Thanks. You gave me some material to study
Notice that I didn't say Bach was "against" modes, or that WTC was written "against" modality, but that he wrote that to establish the "new temperament" (which would probably be Werckmeister, yes), which, in itself, wasn't against, or in favour, of modalism, which was already, by then, a relic of the past. I also read that he and Kirnberger disagreed about the temperament.

Of course I know that he harmonized the chorales (which, in their vast majority, were created around 100 years earlier, therefore in the transition period, and some are tonally ambivalent), and sometimes uses convoluted harmonies on them.
I am also familiar with some works that have some tonal ambivalence (like the "dorian" tocatta and fugue BWV 538 - BTW, I'd like to know who named it "dorian"), but nothing of that matters, because Bach was a master polyphonist, as well as a master of tonal harmony, and he treated very well any universe he moved on, respecting it and taking it to the maximum, being it the concertos and chamber music, the church music or the more didactic and theoretic works like the WTC, the Musical Offering or the Art of Fugue.

[frederik D]

... because Bach was a master polyphonist, as well as a master of tonal harmony, and he treated very well any universe he moved on, respecting it and taking it to the maximum, being it the concertos and chamber music, the church music or the more didactic and theoretic works like the WTC, the Musical Offering or the Art of Fugue.

Bach is indeed a master of many things, amongst them tonal harmony. The more I study his music, the more I am amazed about how ingenious and at the same time seamingly effortless it is in an harmonical sense.

The first time I heard the harmonic sequence of the the "dessen Ruhm"-passage of the opening choir of the saint john passion (Herr, unser Hersscher)I was moved to tears... I was a kid back then, and knew nothing of harmony, and only later found out how clever it was done

[A.M. Gold]

There are not chords in the conception of these composers. Period, full stop. 'Expanded homophony' certainly does not amount to chords. Cadential formula in polyphonic writing does not amount to *chords*. No. You have actual chord changes there! I assure you there is no evidence for those figures at that time. This is your invention. 'Harmonies' is not a synonym for 'chords' in this way.

No need to speak with periods & full stops.

Well, what you missed is that jancivil was sending that KVR post by Western Union.

[A.M. Gold]

Harmony is the real power of music, but in order to use it well, you have to understand it as a theory first, and then as application. Often, particularly with EDM, people try to do it the other way 'round.

You don't go to uni and play a bunch of chords THEN work out the theory - you study the theory, then build the chords. Or scales, or cells, or whatever.

Well, that's the academic line of thinking. There's something to be said for spontaneity too. I'm not sure that even Mozart had the kind of music theory training many university graduates have today, and I seriously doubt that, even if he did, he employed it in his composition process. He had extremely refined absolute pitch and could therefore simply transcribe any musical thought that occurred in his mind instantly to paper. I don't think there's much evidence that he worked his compositions out theoretically, though he did know the rules of counterpoint for his day.

I disagree that people have to make music into some kind of engineering project in order to be masterful in an original and pleasing way. Paul McCartney is no neo-classicist, and would not impress many academic composers, but I personally think he has written a lot of beautiful music, and all without a stitch of academic theory behind what he does.

Music, is, after all, sound. It isn't math and it isn't theory. If someone finds that they can develop a grasp of how to shape sound to create impressive musical effect based on instinct and a more natural grasp of melody and harmony within their own mind, then their lack of theory knowledge is irrelevant, and indeed theory might simply be an impediment to them.

[tapper mike]

I was about to bring up Sir Paul as well.

{quote]Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history.[1] More than 2,200 artists have covered his Beatles song "Yesterday", more than any other song in history. Wings' 1977 release "Mull of Kintyre", is one of the all-time best-selling singles in the UK. McCartney has written or co-written 32 songs that have reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, and as of 2012 he has sold over 15.5 million RIAA-certified units in the United States.[/quote]
wikipedia

Irving Berlin was no slouch either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin
And was quite a bit less knowledgeable the Paul McCartney

[A.M. Gold]

Well, the pop and rock landscape is littered with people who have no formal training and yet figure out their own approach to melody, harmony, and rhythm (including learning or discovering scales, modes in some cases, and learning a wide palette of chords in some cases as well).

Some of the most striking chord progressions and sweet turns of melody that I've heard have been in both Celtic and Andean folk music, and this wasn't stuff that was formulated at universities. Indian traditional music is also heavy on spontaneous improvisation and can be quite ingenious.

Ravi Shankar said this:

"In terms of aesthetics, a raga is the projection of the artist's inner spirit, a manifestation of his most profound sentiments and sensibilities brought forth through tones and melodies. The musician must breath life into each raga as he unfolds and expands it. As much as 90 percent of Indian music may be improvised and because so very much depends on understanding the spirit and nuances of the art, the relationship between the artist and his guru is the keystone of this ancient tradition. From the beginning, the aspiring musician requires special and individual attention to bring him to the moment of artistic mastery. The unique aura of a raga (one might say its "soul") is its spiritual quality and manner of expression, and this cannot be learned from any book.

It is only after many long and extensive years of "sadhana" (dedicated practice and discipline) under the guidance of one's guru and his blessings, that the artist is empowered to put "prana" (the breath of life) into a raga. This is accomplished by employing the secrets imparted by one's teacher such as the use of "shrutis" (microtones other than the 12 semitones in an octave, Indian music using smaller intervals than Western music: 22 within an octave): "gamakas" (special varieties of glissando which connect one note to the other), and "andolan" (a sway - but not a vibrato). The result is that each note pulsates with life and the raga becomes vibrant and incandescent."

He is clearly talking about a student/teacher relationship, but it doesn't sound like one in which formulas are memorized, as in Western academic theory. This seems more like a "rubbing off" kind of process, after which the student, through an enormous amount of practice, is able to draw upon his or her own spontaneous insights and natural understandings in order to begin to create new works in the raga form.

[fmr]

There are a lot of rubbish being written here. As always, the myth of the "inspiration", and the inevitable Mozart come to the arena. Those who talk about Mozart seem to know nothing about him. First: he was a genious, and geniality is not what we are talking about here. Second: His father was himself a composer, and he was his first teacher. Back then, children were taught everything at the same time. He was taught the keyboard, he was taught notation, improvisation and also rules of composition.
Regarding Paul McCartney, I just quote a small conversation between Ravel and Gershwin. Gershwin came to France to study composition, and went to ask Ravel to teach him. Ravel asked him how much did he earned making music. When Gershwin told him how much, Ravel replied: "It's me who should take lessons from you, not the opposite". I believe that nobody will place Gershwin above Ravel in terms of compositional and musical knowledge. This is to those who measure music in terms of money.
Regarding the ragas, you should see what George Harrison himself, (which was a great fried of Ravi Shankar) told about that. The indian musicians start to be taught in early ages, and ony the most gifted proceed, and mastering the indian music is a task for a lifetime. Sure it is improvised. Bach also improvised, as well as the vast majority of musicians in the baroque. But the improvisation, quoting a teacher of mine "is what we study the most". Improvising is not an anything goes art - one has to master the basis of that kind of music to improvise well, being it jazz, folk, indian or balinese. In western music, improvisation was mainly banned, but in the 18th century it was still common. Mozart himself was a master of improvisation - his piano concerto cadences were never written, because he improvised them in the moment, every time.
So, to resume, no matter what is your goal, you have to study to master your art, or else you are just taking a bet as if you were playing in the lottery.

[Arrested Developer]

Notice that I didn't say Bach was "against" modes, or that WTC was written "against" modality, but that he wrote that to establish the "new temperament" (which would probably be Werckmeister, yes), which, in itself, wasn't against, or in favour, of modalism, which was already, by then, a relic of the past. I also read that he and Kirnberger disagreed about the temperament.

Hi Fernando,
at that time, discussions about temperaments were quite usual among musicians.
Kirnberger e. g. developped an equal temperament, but in the same time wrote that such a thing isn't useful, since all keys sound same...
Also, different instruments were tuned in different ways according to the acoustic properties (this is quite important if one works with different harpsichords, clavichords etc.
p.s. you're right, you didn't say Bach was "against" modes...
in fact, Mattheson (who was the first to write a collection of pieces in every "key" - that is 24 pieces) was and some of Bach's sons mentioned modality in not a very nice way.

Of course I know that he harmonized the chorales (which, in their vast majority, were created around 100 years earlier, therefore in the transition period, and some are tonally ambivalent), and sometimes uses convoluted harmonies on them.
I am also familiar with some works that have some tonal ambivalence (like the "dorian" tocatta and fugue BWV 538 - BTW, I'd like to know who named it "dorian"),

A usual name for g-minor in baroque was "dorius transpositus" (see Mattheson, etc)
But: the "dorian" signature has not a big importance in reality:
first, "modern" minor was seen rather as a new version of the dorian (see the title in the WTC: re-mi-fa (for minor)
second, the standardized signatures only developped at that time.
There is an aria in g-minor of Bach, where he wrote the first line with one b, the following ones with two b-s.
Ab major sometimes is used as if it would be Lydian (3 b-s, e. g. in "Ach, Golgatha").
In Matthesons 24 pieces, the signatures are totally pragmatic; C#-major with 6#; d-minor without b, etc.

p.s. thanks for your comment on the "Mozart-bullshit".
It's really easy to read a book about Mozart and find out that he - as the child of one of that times leading musical pedagogues - not only was absolutely super-trained in theory, but also that he hated composers with lacking skills...

Best regards,
AD

[A.M. Gold]

There are a lot of rubbish being written here. As always, the myth of the "inspiration", and the inevitable Mozart come to the arena. Those who talk about Mozart seem to know nothing about him. First: he was a genious, and geniality is not what we are talking about here. Second: His father was himself a composer, and he was his first teacher. Back then, children were taught everything at the same time. He was taught the keyboard, he was taught notation, improvisation and also rules of composition.
Regarding Paul McCartney, I just quote a small conversation between Ravel and Gershwin. Gershwin came to France to study composition, and went to ask Ravel to teach him. Ravel asked him how much did he earned making music. When Gershwin told him how much, Ravel replied: "It's me who should take lessons from you, not the opposite". I believe that nobody will place Gershwin above Ravel in terms of compositional and musical knowledge. This is to those who measure music in terms of money.
Regarding the ragas, you should see what George Harrison himself, (which was a great fried of Ravi Shankar) told about that. The indian musicians start to be taught in early ages, and ony the most gifted proceed, and mastering the indian music is a task for a lifetime. Sure it is improvised. Bach also improvised, as well as the vast majority of musicians in the baroque. But the improvisation, quoting a teacher of mine "is what we study the most". Improvising is not an anything goes art - one has to master the basis of that kind of music to improvise well, being it jazz, folk, indian or balinese. In western music, improvisation was mainly banned, but in the 18th century it was still common. Mozart himself was a master of improvisation - his piano concerto cadences were never written, because he improvised them in the moment, every time.
So, to resume, no matter what is your goal, you have to study to master your art, or else you are just taking a bet as if you were playing in the lottery.

So exactly how did Mozart compose? Enlighten us, please. What was in his mind as he wrote music? You seem to know a lot about him.

Did you not read the quote I included from Shankar? He said "this isn't something you can learn from a book". And he used the word "spiritual" several times.

I'm sorry, that just isn't what people encounter in academic music training in the West, and I know because I've studied it at university too.

And as far as McCartney's greatness coming down to money, that's silly. He wasn't rich during the time he wrote most of his best music, that came later.

If you think it's somehow easy to write truly great and memorable popular music, you are deluding yourself.

But I'll be glad to hear your song that is every bit as good as Hey Jude, which I assume you can dash off without much effort, because of your extensive training.

I'm really not interested in any dissonant or experimental academic music you have, though. Doesn't interest or impress me at all, and it simply doesn't matter to me that you have a theory degree if that's what you use it for. Nor do I think it will ever mean much to most other people.