I have to confess I am not that much interested in jazz, and find all this talk about "chords" somehow like a thing of the past (late romantics were already much ahead of that thought, and we are talking about the end of the XIXth century).jancivil wrote:Definitely all true. Of the brilliant minds, much as in jazz quite a bit later and as people availed themselves of a musical education more than just the street learning.
But as my professor in 'harmony' at CCM was very interested in Messiaen, his job was to train us to part-write by roman numerals and figured bass.
Many of the developments have to do with embracing linear concepts which is where harmony sprouted out of, so as I say, the educated musician makes the distinction and I acknowledge my dichotomy as a bit glib. I would shine a light on the tendencies there that did look to the east.
Back on topic, and to the OP, I'd like to share some of my thoughts regarding modes, because it's a subject I am particularly fond of:
The circle of fifths is very much connected with the tonal system and the tonal way of thinking - functional harmony, and progressing in fifths is the simplest way, because tonalities at the fifth above or below are the closest. I don't think it adds that much to modes. Actually, I think it would be more of an obstacle.
Modes are in no way related to fifths. Back in the Middle Ages until the Renaissance, when modes were commonly used, each mode had a spirit (a mood), and that's how they were chosen for a certain composition. If, in the middle of the composition, the author wanted to change the spirit, he would change "mode" - he would "modulate" to another mode, and the music would change... as simple as that.
There were no transpositions - that concept were extraneous to modal thought, or to music itself, because there was no fixed pitches. Usually, singers would follow the church organ, or any instrument that had a fixed pitch (like the flutes). The stringed instruments would be tuned accordingly. You could find organs that vary on pitch from other organs by two or more tones - that was not important, and did not prevent people to sing in the same mode (they simply transpose the melodies accordingly, like pop singers do nowadays, constantly.
If you want to use modes now, and preserve their spirit, you must "forget" anything you learned about tonics, dominants, ii-V-I, whatever. You must sing the tone, feel it, let it grow on you, and use very simple and fluid melodic accompaniments, that let the melody live. Find the intervals that define the tone (the lack of lead tone in the vii in the first and third modes is one of them, the half-tone interval from the first to the second degree in the third mode or E mode - your phrygian, is another, etc.).
Avoid "chord progressions", because, as Jancivil pointed, you may fall in the trap of tonal atractions (very easily), and that will destroy the mode, immediately. You may use chords, if carefully, but think in them as superimposed intervals created by different melodies sounding together. Give the main role to the melodies, even on the bass and other voices. If you want fills, create long sounding pads, rather than chord progressions - modes work well with them.
You may transpose, but I would transpose only if/when in need to change registers, to achieve different sonorities in the instrument or voice, or something like that. Use the main music principle here: "repetition and variation".
You can also use sound aggregates, but those depend on the mode and the style of writing - key here is "avoid tonality".
For an example of a modern use of modes in a composition, I advise to listen and read the "Quatre études de rythme" by Olivier Messiaen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatre_%C3 ... _de_rythme). These are for piano solo, so, easier to study and understand, and are a good example of Messiaen particular view on the modes and rhythms. Not exactly "diatonic", but good.
