Your thoughts on modes

[jancivil]

Mea Culpa: I helped sway the thread off-topic by engaging in the argument about the difference between 'de facto' and 'de juris', by which no one has gained anything.
Edited to cut down on wasted space.

[fmr]

The "de facto" names are not "de facto".

Certainly they are.

As pointed out, no, they aren't. Modes, and modal music are names used "de jure" and "de facto", with precise meanings and respecting those meanings, by many people, since many time.

The only fact here was that a bunch of people, which happened to become popular, started to use the same names to designate something that has some coincidental particularilties, but has nothing to do with "the fact" whatsoever. This is wrong, is misleading, and some of us have been pointing it. Of course, there is no law that force you or anyone else to correct the mistake, but, in what I'm concerned, I will keep pointing it out. At least, those who read me will know that the names they are using are not correct, and that those names have a meaning, that's not what is being given by you and those that follow the same line of thought.

If they want to know more, I will gladly help, and there are tons of resources available (immeasurably more than what existed when I started).

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

Attack Magazine article

http://www.attackmagazine.com/technique ... ing-modes/

Here is a small transcription of the linked article:

"So, playing an octave of notes in the C major scale, starting and ending on C, will give you a mode known as Ionian (in the key of C). However, if we start and end our progression at different intervals of the same scale, we get the following modes, now in their respective keys:

1 – C – Ionian
2 – D – Dorian
3 – E – Phrygian
4 – F – Lydian
5 – G – Mixolydian
6 – A – Aeolian
7 – B – Locrian

So, for example, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E is a Phrygian mode in E, whereas F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F will give you a Lydian mode in F. As we’ll see shortly, these modes can then be transposed up and down to play them in different keys. So, if we transposed every note in the E Phrygian mode down four semitones, we’d have C Phrygian."

...erroneous...

When you play a sequence of notes in C Major starting in E and ending in E, you are playing the C Major scale. It's as simple as that. All the rest, again, is plain bullshit. The sooner you get this, the sooner you start to get things right.

"chord progressions" will be not only meaningless in that new world but also will work there like a virus - if they show up they will destroy that new universe.

We certainly live in the age of ignorance.

Yes, ghettosynth doesn't see this kind of helpful-only-to-the-EDMs as often as he'd like, vs sorting it out so a person has a solid foundation should she ever want to get her shit together.

The error is in stating these names out of a complete lack of basic understanding. It's written as though by a moron, additionally. The row on E is Phrygian if E is the center and we haven't destroyed it by chords making it C major. It is NOT C major by a different 'progression', ie, we start C major on E. There is no meaningful result to be had out of this, they're all the same seven notes with these names tossed about and these sentences which have no actual sense. So you can assert that we must see by "comments" how helpful this really is, but there is no use coming out of it. A person can believe they've gotten something, but they have a more verbose confusion, and not even useful terms.

"and you can play them in different keys" /"now in their respective keys"... no, the person doesn't even quite know the meaning of 'keys'.
E Phrygian does not have its 'respective key'. Key of E has four sharps, that thing has zero. If you play E Phrygian in C major, it's f**king C major.

So you're promoting ignorance and really basic mistakes out of laziness and not giving a shit really in order to pose an alternative to useful foundations given by people that did care to learn it and took the time to clarify nonsense.

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

EDIT:

Parent was asking a legitimate question, let me translate "What is the correct terminology to use when discussing scales that are "in common practice" referred to as modes?

Since this is clearly neither a legal nor a political context, it should be clear, to everyone, that the meaning is as I've described in both the original question, and my response.

No, this is bullshit. Absent meaningful context, trying to pose De facto vs De juris is just toss. The law is the fact, the fact is the law.

He has a legitimate question but you have a useless answer. The answer is 'you call them scales'. I've already provided that one pages ago. I'll reiterate: for 'de facto' to be meaningful in your usage, there has to be a new fact. Here is just a confusing way of using names. Refer to 'thing-in-itself' to grok this.

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

People call these scales modes, that is A FACT! It is common usage outside of certain musical circles, that is A FACT! A de facto standard need not be correct, it just needs to be, as demonstrated clearly here, A FACT!

The mode is what it is. The external fact of a mistake is something else.

At the least you're ignoring that Fernando and I are 'concerned with the fact' in music. 'Phrygian on E has its own respective key', is NOT A FACT! It's a moron tossing word salad.

[jancivil]

So you're promoting ignorance and really basic mistakes out of laziness and not giving a shit really in order to pose an alternative to useful foundations given by people that did care to learn it and took the time to clarify nonsense.

No, I'm not promoting anything intentionally. But I certainly don't give a shit that other people come at music from a non-intellectual point of view. I'm stating that people that start these threads probably find that approach, right or wrong, more useful. I don't think that this is something that you have anything to say about. You couldn't fathom the possibility of approaching music as they do. An article like that gives them something, even if it gives you nothing.

What intellectual whatsit? You did, IN FACT promote an article. If you don't see this, see if you can get a better definition of 'promote'.

You're stating only your particular incompetence and attitude, at the end of the day. It gives them 'something', confusion.
You don't think WHAT is something I can't have anything to say about? The topic is 'your thoughts on modes'. You do_not_have 'thoughts on modes', you have thoughts on what people do and are in favor of pandering nonsense instead of sorting the facts out.

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

But I don't think that you're achieving that. I don't think that you know, or you simply have too much contempt for, where that crowd is coming from.

I see where you're coming from, you have pointed to a "helpful" article that is so wrong and so clueless I'm amazed. How many times are we going to do this stupid dance?

No, really, I don't respect that. I don't think me not respecting it makes me suspect at all. For you, I'm some way you don't like. Who gives a shit? You reveal the real point you want to make is how I am in threads disrespects some bullshit.

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

He has a legitimate question but you have a useless answer.

I never gave an answer to his question, I corrected Fernando's misunderstanding of de facto as used in this context.

You postured like you did. The very implication 'your answer' is right there, now "just using the scales" is the fact, "de facto".

The answer is 'you call them scales'.

Yes, but that's not sufficient. It is a "subset" of scales that people want to label. If you have no other label, then you have your answer as to why people call them modes.

I have given what modes are time and time again, in completely useful terms. And you are simply reiterating your own misunderstanding. Modes are_not a 'subset of scales'! Dorian as second mode of Ionian is the same coincidence as Ionian as seventh mode of Dorian. "C major scale" is not C Ionian per se. C major has connotations that C Ionian doesn't have. Dealing with 'diatonic scales' and 'modes' is IN FACT two different things.

[fmr]

The answer is 'you call them scales'.

Yes, but that's not sufficient. It is a "subset" of scales that people want to label. If you have no other label, then you have your answer as to why people call them modes.

What is a "subset" of scales? What the hell is that? Do you actually KNOW anything about music? A subset of scales, admiting there is one, would be when you play less than seven notes. If you play seven notes in a row, you play a scale. This is "Music 101", you can't be any lower than this.

All that lingo that you people created and spread is just pretentious ignorance, and I find it really sad that people like you keep spreading the mistake. But, as I say, we live in an age of ignorance, where ignorants are promoted everywhere, and knowledge is undervalued.

You said you don't care where people come from to music. Apparently, you care where THEY GO. You are trying to keep them in the lower state where you are. I don't care where they come from either, but at least I care where they go. I try to show them there is more than that small world you live in.

[jancivil]

I'm telling you that, I'm not promoting that approach vs any other, I'm suggesting that "that approach" seems to reach that audience, right or wrong. Take what you want from that, I don't really care.

Why are you trying to frame this into something other than I can see with my own two eyes? Now your context of posing it, versus people that don't get where 'that crowd is coming from' vanishes. You actually did pose it versus [vs. an "intellectual" something, "you don't get that all they want is..." etc], we can all read what you wrote.

The topic is 'your thoughts on modes'.

Which, IIRC, the OP felt pressured to change to suit other people's opinions. I was pointing out the post where the OP identified their real interest.

So DE FACTO the thread is 'your thoughts on modes'.

You did that emphatically, and I would say to no real gain for anybody, just muddy the waters some more again and so you can tell me how even directing this into the factual is insulting to the children.