Diatonic modes vs circle of fifths

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

yessongs wrote:It makes sense to me and acts as a really cool way to visualise modulating to other keys. You see these notes are also to be found closely related to each other on the circle of 5ths as well so that can serve as a popular tool as well in fact other than G the rest of the notes in the key of Ab are all to the left of C in the circle of 5ths and all connected to each other. As you investigate this methodology it helps if you are a guitarist as well as a keyboardist because we who play both instruments approach music a lot differently than those who just play and master one instrument and we visualize the notes in a different way. A lot of guys will write music and try to keep every note diatonic. I like to experiment and play in lots of different scales at the same time, so I need to do things in ways that allow me to shift my mind faster and experiment without working my mind too much and this to me is a simpler way to approach modes. All I need to do a s a guitarist is move a pattern down by a backwards major scale which accomplishes the same thing. For instance if I want to play c dorian I need to move my pattern down a whole step if I want to paly phrygian I move the pattern down 2 whole steps then whole step whole step and half step. Basically you are taking your scale patterns down the neck along a backwards major scale pattern. We see such patterns more easily on a guitar than on keyboards so this approach works for us if your a keyboardist ony then this may not be an effective strategy.
The whole thing always go back to "scales" and "chords" everytime. When it is so much simple if you just think about notes, and tonalities. If you alter a note, you may have two things - just a "coloraturs" in which case the altered note is just a passing note, and doesn't affect the tonality, or you have and effective alteration of the base tonality, in which case you just have to figure to where you are going.

Sure any tonality that has flats is to the left of C in the circle of fifths, as well as each tonality that has sharps is to the right, but if you keep going left you'll end in the right part, because it's a circle.

Moving between tonalities has nothing to do with modes, because modes are different things. You may use those as a mnemonic (no problem, each musician has his/her own personal bag of tricks, I guess) but you should bear in mind that it's just that - a mnemonic, like there are others to memorize maths and physics formulas, etc. NOT a system.

The system you are using is the same old and plain "tonal system", nothing else. No need to confuse things.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
jancivil wrote: I'm not applying 'modern thinking'. It is obvious from "Pythagorean tuning" that 3:2 was extrapolated (if there is some objection to calling that 'the fifth', I don't care) out to 12 iterations where it was noticed it didn't quite make unity and an adustment made. The very basis for scales in much of the world IS here. If you look at 1/4 comma for meantone, that basis is in the diesis 128:125. We do NOT arrive at these things in a vacuum. It looks like to me you aren't considering the statement ("however you want to put it"). "Stacking", multiplying 3:2. I believe it happened. Look at the material, look at Pythagorean tuning.
I see this Pithagorean "prove" all over, yet, there is no document about the ancient greek music that relates Pithagoras to their used system. Actually, it's believed that Pithagoras built a system "different" from what the Greeks were actually using, which makes more sense, since he is a late greek, and the greeks were making music (and tragedies) way before he even existed.
I put quotes around "Pythagorus" more than once in these discussions. I am well apprised of the legendary or mythological nature of the name.
JJF is trying to argue that there were 'greek modes' out of which the church modes are based; but then there is no Pythagorean tuning. And the only impetus I can find for such a statement is to contest this 'built through fifths' in favor of 'No, they come from the greek modes'. Which arrived from outer space, or grew on trees to be picked, one supposes. That isn't an explanation. You do not get rid of intonation as the basis for making 'the greek modes' by proposing exactly nothing.

What is the Pythagorean comma? What does it do? I can't even believe there is contention about it. It refers specifically to going out 3:2 twelve iterations and it doesn't add up to unity. It's TUNED, or corrected to fit it. This is a theory of intonation, Pythagorean intonation. The basis for tuning lies here. It's not a reach in any way, it doesn't reverse engineer. I only embarked on this as MadBrain asserts 'Indian music, like Arabic music is not based in fifths'. He did that again recently and I was finally able to make the point stick.

There are many things in Arabic and ICM that exceed dealing with perfect fifths, this is quite true. But the basis for all of it is 3:2 vs unity/octave, 1:1, 2:1 etc. This is unavovidable. Arabic music uses ratios, the basic ratios begin with dividing the string in half, in thirds, in fourths and exploring the results in rows. I showed youse the chart already.
But no, one day someone made 'the greek modes' out of words. Give me a break.
Beyond this, look at a horn, what are the open tones before you start in with valves or what-have-you? What do we get? Ratios. What person in antiquity said, oh here are the dorian mode and the phrygian mode, some nice person wrote these down, let's build things to play these? Think it through.
fmr wrote: Just to end, Pithagorean scale was never used, AFAIK.
I don't know. No one knows, it's unknowable, we do not know what the music of any of these times is like.
I am in all cases where I even mention the word 'Pythagorean' referring to common_knowledge. But when this point is tried, that 'the modes are based in the greek modes', you do not get that basis through itself in a vacuum, or through words. It's passing strange to see it tried.

Post

JumpingJackFlash wrote:
jancivil wrote:the very word 'tetrachord' is based in this 'Pythagorean Intonation'. That is where it comes from. Look it up.
Semantics aside, that's meaningless.
All this Pythagorus stuff is mythical at best, and most of it is apocryphal. None of his writings have survived. Music however has survived (based on our diatonic pitch set) from several centuries from before he was born.
Are you kidding us? Pythagorus is a myth, but you're sure we have *music* from before his birth (or non-birth?). Based on *our* diatonic pitch set. Because clearly you and the boy Sherman and Mr Peabody got in the Wayback Machine and experienced just this. Then you see if you can "source" that by referring to 'the diatonic genus', which is totally in the same study as 'Pythagorean intonation'.

Simply incredible that you would try this out on people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus_%28music%29#Tunings

Image

Where does this 9:8, this 256:243 come from? IT'S BUILT FROM FIFTHS. 3:2. And yes, there are other things; one supposes further experiments based in ratios of integers. The basis is well known, though.
Also, this "our diatonic scales", that is not this. :scared:
To arrive at them, you do make an intonation through this methodology right here, though.
3:2 x 3:2 = 9:8 and so on. :hihi:

Post

fmr wrote:
This post reminded me an anecdote someone told me years ago: Two guys went to the races. At a certain point, one of them exclaimed: "Jesus, so many horses!". His fellow answered: "Yep, there's seventeen horses.". Surprised, the first guy asked: "How did you manage to count them?", to wwhat the second guy replied: "Easy! I counted the legs and divided by four." :hihi:

But at least this guy knew they were horses.
:D

Post

Wow, she quotes wikipedia as a source after so many years attempting to discredit it and all references to music theory in it.
Dell Vostro i9 64GB Ram Windows 11 Pro, Cubase, Bitwig, Mixcraft Guitar Pod Go, Linntrument Nektar P1, Novation Launchpad

Post

tapper mike wrote:Wow, she quotes wikipedia as a source after so many years attempting to discredit it and all references to music theory in it.
:hail: :hail: :hihi:
Barry
If a billion people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing

Post

tapper mike wrote:Wow, she quotes wikipedia as a source after so many years attempting to discredit it and all references to music theory in it.
I have never done anything of the sort. There was this one time, though, where you posted a wiki link that you hadn't read or couldn't understand. Voice leading. Remember you made multiple posts telling us voice leading was when the lead voice something something, and there was all this back and forth, ultimately posting that link which agreed with everyone here that actually has a working definition of the term? Yeah, no, my problem was not with Wiki. Again, I have never said anything that even you with your inebriate ways could interpret as that statement.
You're just making shit up about me. :scared:
Wiki is as good as its editors in any given section. Some of the articles on music theory are excellent, some are garbage, that's how it goes.

EDIT: reading back over this, I find that on pg 5 from February I resorted to Wikipedia 5 times. :lol:

EDIT SOME MORE AGAIN!
In musical tuning theory, a Pythagorean interval is a musical interval with frequency ratio equal to a power of two divided by a power of three, or vice versa.[1] For instance, the perfect fifth with ratio 3/2 and the perfect fourth with ratio 4/3 are Pythagorean intervals.

Wiki; source Benson, Donald C. (2003). A Smoother Pebble: Mathematical Explorations, p.56. ISBN 978-0-19-514436-9. "The frequency ratio of every Pythagorean interval is a ratio between a power of two and a power of three...confirming the Pythagorean requirements that all intervals be associated with ratios of whole numbers."
Last edited by jancivil on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Post

jancivil wrote: Wiki is as good as its editors in any given section. Some of the articles on music theory are excellent, some are garbage, that's how it goes.
Very true jancivil. :)

Post

trimph1 wrote:
tapper mike wrote:Wow, she quotes wikipedia as a source after so many years attempting to discredit it and all references to music theory in it.
:hail: :hail: :hihi:
Yeah, wow, real impressive. It's actually quite easy to look better than the fictional event you created. 'hihi'.

AFTER SO MANY YEARS. :lol: 'cause hyping it as far as you can lends veracity to your hallucination.
Yeah, go check it out, click on my user name and see if you can verify that story. That's just WILD.
I've never once dissed wikipedia per se. There is one article that came up sometime in the past several months I had a problem with. There are articles quite often where part of it is good and part of it isn't. It's a work-in-progress. How can the work of so many be consistent in a way one could characterize so glibly? I don't resemble that remark at all.
I'll lean on it, and one of the things I've presented a number of times is my contribution to the larger article.

But, I should worry, you know. Here is a guy that does "different theorems rather then one size fits all. The theory behind Basie isn't the theory behind Monk" [No. A theorem would be true for both.] and 'singular' for single (and one time, 'obtuse' meaning overly complicated), apparently it looks smarter than the right words.
That's all true, unlike this shit up in here.

Post

After some months I can answer the question from first post:

- Recordbox recognizes G# phrygian as G# major (but this is questionable, since the tune uses 8 notes instead of 7 from a scale). G# phrygian contains G#m chord and in fact mixes perfectly with G#m.
- D dorian is recognized as D major, even though it mixes perfectly with D minor (contains Dm chord) and A minor (same notes as Am scale).

Conclusion is that Recordbox is confused by non-basic modes and it's always advisable to check keys on your own, if not certain.
You can trash all that "camelot wheel" now and get back to classic key notation.
Blog ------------- YouTube channel
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)

Post

DJ Warmonger wrote:[...] check keys on your own, if not certain.
You can trash all that "camelot wheel" now and get back to classic key notation.
So you asked a question of the group and you now have an answer in isolation? You're at square one still.

G# Phrygian is these notes: G#, A, B, C#, D#, E, F#. In a key signature, that looks like the one used for E major.

But G# Phrygian is assuredly not in the key of E major. Keys are major or minor; E major is centered on E. The same signature applies for [relative minor] C# minor. Centered on C#.
G# Phrygian, by definition, is centered on G#. We've been over this and over this. It does not have the property of key, being another type of thing than the major or minor.
You could use 4 sharps in a key signature for ease of use, but that doesn't say to the musician 'Yo, key of E major here' and it's no good for the musician to make that mistake. For the above reasons. IE: It isn't true.

Now, it may be true that considering key signature of a mode assures that smooth 'mix' transition, but in terms of musicianship, conflating the mode [G# Phrygian producing 4 sharps] with [E] major is not going to serve you in progressing further, it is a stumbling block.

Post

fmr wrote:
yessongs wrote: I want to play c dorian I need to move my pattern down a whole step if I want phrygian I move the pattern down 2 whole steps then whole step whole step and half step. Basically you are taking your scale patterns down the neck along a backwards major scale pattern.
Whatever works for you, great. I don't really know what a description of that method has to say to 'modes', which became the subject, particularly. Or the upside down abstraction. If it generates ideas for you, great.


I'm a guitarist at base. I don't need to rely on fingerboard as pattern, I hope, and I don't take fingering as musical thought in itself. I find very idiomatic guitar music kind of tiresome, or predictable.
I strove for a long time to transcend it, and I don't write from the guitar perspective nor am I enough of a keyboardist for patterns/fingering there to assert themselves or drive things either. I want to sing a line, but of course I wouldn't want to be limited to my actual voice; I want a melody that is not a property of fingerboard.

Modes have something to offer - from a stripped-down perspective rather than restless change of root - that scales to chords do not offer. So for me, mixing mode up with scale is uninteresting, you're more talking about scales with certain names. There is a distinction to be made but it seems fewer people share my interest in this thing in itself and discussion is always reverting to 'scales to chords'.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”