Your thoughts on modes

[ghettosynth]

...

[cis-didge]

Once again... Mickael Hewitt.

A very good book of four hundred pages for only $3 in its numeric edition!!!

(Click the picture)

obviously it is Michael Hewitt not Mickael

[ghettosynth]

...

[Zane]

We all agree on (hopefully):

Modes are not scales or in a "key" at all.
As has been mentioned as well: There really are many, many more than 8 "modes". The modern Turkish system alone recognizes over 500 makamlar (unique collections of ways of playing a smaller lexicon of flavours).

Though many Western music academics would readily refer to a use of modes in jazz or rock or even some historical use of modes by recognized icons such as Debussy or Stravinsky, once any mode has been combined with Western harmony (whether it's tonal, atonal, pantonal, textural or whatever), it ceases to be modal. Period. Study any one of these forms of modal music in its own environment outside of relative Western influence (if you can), and you will then begin to understand why.

Ok. How do you call a western song (with full harmony) where the tonic is E and where the melodic and harmonic notes used are E F G A B C D? This is often referred to as being "in the scale of E phrygian" or "in the mode of E phrygian", and as far as I can see, there's not really any replacement terminology. Tell me how I should call it.

I'd just describe it as a "western song (with full harmony) using E phrygian as its primary tonality." One could argue that it's a Western song with harmony using modes or modality. I'd say "yep." But it's not what I would call modal music. You're right. There is no replacement terminology in the West. In the end, it's just labels. Cultures appropriate from other cultures what is useful to them and use the material for their own ends in entirely new contexts. This is what has happened with the term modal in the West. I was just hoping to add to the discussion by pointing out a few of the facts regarding the origins and original musical context of modal music.

[Zane]

We all agree on (hopefully):

Modes are not scales or in a "key" at all.

Doesn't matter, I could quote ad nausium endless learned musicians that begin the introduction of modes by referring to them as either a scale, a scale form, a scale type, or part of a diatonic collection. They will all refer to a tonic or a keynote to imply what we think of as key.

Since you're just another guy on the internet, I'm going to take their word for it over yours, ok?

Okay. It's absolutely your right to do so. In the end, just make music and be happy right? I was simply drawing attention to the world where modes actually come from. Refer to my previous post about cultural appropriation and new contexts. Your learned musicians (all Western trained, I'm assuming) are not at all incorrect in the sense of the newer context in which their placing their definition of modes. But they might just make their world a whole lot richer if they were to take a peak at the actual roots of their tradition (use of modes without consideration of harmony in the historical and modern living sense).

As has been mentioned as well: There really are many, many more than 8 "modes". The modern Turkish system alone recognizes over 500 makamlar (unique collections of ways of playing a smaller lexicon of flavours).

Since a displacement can be applied to any scale, yes sure, but again, unless one is actually interested in the "makamlar", most musicians seeking to use modes as described in the opening of this thread, e.g. in popular music, are probably primarily, if not exclusively, interested in the common modes discussed here.

The problem with your purist perspective is that it has no value to people who don't share it. They can't use it, so it's irrelevant. That is the essence of my participation here. Regardless of your approval, people do in fact employ "modes" in their music whether they're simply adding a different color without really thinking about whether they are playing modal music or doing something more than that.

I absolutely concur with you: using modes to colour your Western music can sound cool. Absolutely. I do approve (and know that me or anyone else confident in their ability to make music won't look to seek anyone's approval) It's too bad you see mine as a purist perspective. Damn these internets! I'm sure I could explain my position a lot better in person. Again, you can belittle my commentary as having no value, but I'm simply imploring people to take a look a vast rich world that is the origin of the modes they've inherited. I wouldn't be so quick to judge information useless like that.

Though many Western music academics would readily refer to a use of modes in jazz or rock or even some historical use of modes by recognized icons such as Debussy or Stravinsky, once any mode has been combined with Western harmony (whether it's tonal, atonal, pantonal, textural or whatever), it ceases to be modal. Period.

There are two possible states for this assertion, it's either right, or it's wrong. No matter the truth state, people do use modes in popular music combined with western harmony, that's is a fact that I doubt that you disagree with. Hence, if you are right, then as I've stated numerous times, using modes in popular music isn't always about creating "modal music", in fact, according to you, it's never about creating "modal music", and if you're wrong, then it's still the case that using modes isn't always about (knowingly) creating "modal music." In either case, you're not really adding anything to a discussion about modes in popular music. Ok, the title is "your thoughts on modes", so all thoughts are fair, including mine, I think.

So, by all means, maintain your purist stance if it works for you. But stop telling everybody else that your point of view, and in particular, your level of understanding and interaction with the modes, is necessary for others to employ these simple kinds of ideas. It's simply not true.

And finally, again, if it's not yet abundantly clear, when people start talking about modes in "coldplay", or EDM, in my experience, THIS is what they're talking about and what they want to explore, perhaps they want to go somewhat deeper, but with rare exception, the "makamlar" is of no interest, unless of course, you're talking about a particular kind of hashish.

Again, I agree, use of modes is not always about "modal music". I'm hardly a purist. I've been very clear about that. And like you finally concede "All thoughts are fair". I'm adding my thoughts on modes and what they are. I'm not telling anyone that my level of understanding or interaction with the modes is necessary. I'm simply encouraging anyone who may be interested about a whole other world called modal music. This world is very related to concepts like mixolydian, phrygian, etc. Makamlar may be of no interest to you; sounds like you're more into hash. Awesome for you. You are not everyone on this forum. I praise the notion that we all can contribute our ideas to a music forum and make it all the richer.

[ghettosynth]

...

[JumpingJackFlash]

I see the thread has taken a turn for the worse. I'm not going to get involved in the petty name-calling and personal attacks (on both sides), but I will respond to a couple of points:

The very concept of modes comes from non-Western music, that is, music without a theoretical need for harmony in the Western sense.

That's not quite true. Modes existed in the Western world and were used for centuries, but they did predate "harmony" (in the sense that we now understand it).

We all agree on (hopefully):

Modes are not scales or in a "key" at all.

They are certainly not in (or part of) a key. That much is fact.
However, you could be justified in calling them "scales", in the literal sense of a progressive series of notes. Just as we can talk about the whole-tone scale, or the diminished scale and so on.

Ok. How do you call a western song (with full harmony) where the tonic is E and where the melodic and harmonic notes used are E F G A B C D? This is often referred to as being "in the scale of E phrygian" or "in the mode of E phrygian", and as far as I can see, there's not really any replacement terminology. Tell me how I should call it.

As with your previous question, it depends on context.
It depends on the "harmony" and how it is used. If the harmony has a G7 resolving to a C chord for example, then that would make the music in C major. The fact that the melody starts on E is neither here nor there.

It is possible to have some sense of "harmony" and still be in the realm of modality, but such examples are rare and normally somewhat limited.

[fmr]

We all agree on (hopefully):

Modes are not scales or in a "key" at all.
As has been mentioned as well: There really are many, many more than 8 "modes". The modern Turkish system alone recognizes over 500 makamlar (unique collections of ways of playing a smaller lexicon of flavours).

True

Though many Western music academics would readily refer to a use of modes in jazz or rock or even some historical use of modes by recognized icons such as Debussy or Stravinsky, once any mode has been combined with Western harmony (whether it's tonal, atonal, pantonal, textural or whatever), it ceases to be modal. Period. Study any one of these forms of modal music in its own environment outside of relative Western influence (if you can), and you will then begin to understand why.

Not accurate. If you are talking about "functional harmony", then yes, it's true. If you are talking about using chords or sound aggregates, then you are completely wrong. Beides, the so called "church modes" are western, and cannot be study outside of western influence, because THEY ARE the western influence. We had more years of modal music than we had of tonal music (this last one only started around 1600, and more or less ceased to become the main current in the beginning of the XXth century.
Besides, there are many more modes than those you mention (from non-western cultures), some of them that are the creation of western composrs, like Messiaen. Modes do not have to have seven notes, they can have less (five or six notes) and they can have more than seven too.

... but I do implore the more open minded to please, please do become just a bit more knowledgeable about a non-Western musical tradition that could be termed modal by learning from an accomplished musician or two.

Again, modes are not exclusive of western musical tradition. Quite the opposite.

[fmr]

A big problem with discussions of the Byzantine modes as they are in the current Western tradition is that we seem to have lost all the other knowledge besides the notes themselves that originally went along with them and is needed to actually reproduce them with their original intentions and flavours.

The current modes (church modes) are not the Byzantine modes, although it's accepted they came from there. And the tradition was preserved till now in some monasteries, and has been rediscovered, so it isn't lost. All the manuscripts, texts and the pratice that reach today helps in establish what is the spirit of each mode, and how they were used. So, no, we didn't "lost all the other knowledge besides the notes themselves". The fact that some people started to play scales that had notes coincident with the modes, and started call those scales the same name doesn«t mean there isn't people who are still knowing what those modes are, what other modes, and how to work with them.

Actually, the same thing happened with the baroque music. Until the 70s, people payed baroque music indistinctively of classical or romantic music, but then some people started to study the subject, and the current practice radically changed, causing baroque music to be performed now in a completely different way than it was 30/40 years ago.

Of course, there are still people who think that "its just notes, nobody cares", much in the way some people here say about modes.

[MadBrain]

Ok. How do you call a western song (with full harmony) where the tonic is E and where the melodic and harmonic notes used are E F G A B C D? This is often referred to as being "in the scale of E phrygian" or "in the mode of E phrygian", and as far as I can see, there's not really any replacement terminology. Tell me how I should call it.

As with your previous question, it depends on context.
It depends on the "harmony" and how it is used. If the harmony has a G7 resolving to a C chord for example, then that would make the music in C major. The fact that the melody starts on E is neither here nor there.

It is possible to have some sense of "harmony" and still be in the realm of modality, but such examples are rare and normally somewhat limited.

I said that the TONIC is E. That means that the harmony is based around the Em chord and is similar to E minor (except with F instead of F#), that it has dominant chords resolving to E (such as F, Em), that perfect cadences end with the melody playing E.

[fmr]

Still regarding what Mode means, in music, let me quote the first paragraph of thae article in Wikipedia. This article was already quoted (out of context) by someone, trying to support his misconceptions, but I think the introduction is pretty clear and self-explanatory:
"In the theory of Western music, mode (from Latin modus, "measure, standard, manner, way, size, limit of quantity, method") (Powers 2001, Introduction; OED) generally refers to a type of scale, coupled with a set of characteristic melodic behaviours. This use, still the most common in recent years, reflects a tradition dating to the Middle Ages, itself inspired by the theory of ancient Greek music."
I would like to call your attention, particularly, to "coupled with a set of characteristic melodic behaviours". The article, in full, can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_%28music%29 It even has some short melodic examples of each of the church modes, for those interested.

Regarding the "Modern" part of the article, I don't subscribe it, and I don't believe it was from the same author of the first part, but since the articles are not signed, I can't really say. However, the first paragraph pretty much sums all I consider wrong in the approach: "The modern Western modes consist of seven scales related to the familiar major and minor keys.". As has being pointed by me and others, the confusion created by relating modes with major and minor "keys" makes me believe it was written by someone with much lesser knowledge of music. Besides, it's not more "modern" than any other approach, namely those that create really modal music. It's a "particular" approach, made by a "particular" group.

In particular, the fact that it's written "major and minor keys". Major and minor are modes themselves, the ones that remained when the tonality and functional harmony established. We say "in the key of c minor, or in the key of A Major", but when we just say Major and minor, those are modes, not keys.

This is a good example where Wikipedia can be helpful, but one need to be careful about what's in there.

[fmr]

I said that the TONIC is E. That means that the harmony is based around the Em chord and is similar to E minor (except with F instead of F#), that it has dominant chords resolving to E (such as F, Em), that perfect cadences end with the melody playing E.

If it has "dominant" chords resolving to E, it has leading tones, therefore, you probably have a chord with D#. If it has D#, then it's no longer the mode of E, is it? The presence of D# is much more important for e minor than the presence of F#. To be the mode of E, the chord had to contain D natural, but then it would no longer be a "dominant" chord. So, where are we staying exactly?

The harmony is more powerful than the melody, that's why we have to be careful with the harmony when we want to preserve the mode.

[Zane]

A big problem with discussions of the Byzantine modes as they are in the current Western tradition is that we seem to have lost all the other knowledge besides the notes themselves that originally went along with them and is needed to actually reproduce them with their original intentions and flavours.

The current modes (church modes) are not the Byzantine modes, although it's accepted they came from there. And the tradition was preserved till now in some monasteries, and has been rediscovered, so it isn't lost. All the manuscripts, texts and the pratice that reach today helps in establish what is the spirit of each mode, and how they were used. So, no, we didn't "lost all the other knowledge besides the notes themselves". The fact that some people started to play scales that had notes coincident with the modes, and started call those scales the same name doesn«t mean there isn't people who are still knowing what those modes are, what other modes, and how to work with them.

Actually, the same thing happened with the baroque music. Until the 70s, people payed baroque music indistinctively of classical or romantic music, but then some people started to study the subject, and the current practice radically changed, causing baroque music to be performed now in a completely different way than it was 30/40 years ago.

Of course, there are still people who think that "its just notes, nobody cares", much in the way some people here say about modes.

You're right, mea culpa. To be more specific, the Byzantine modes are not the church modes, the church modes are directly analogous to them though; they are a direct derivation of the Byzantine modes. Actually the Byzantine modes have kept a lot of the extra knowledge about the actual behaviour of the modes (rhythm, tempo, cadences, melodic pattern, etc) that doesn't usually get conveyed when most Western musicians discuss the church modes. So, you're right, we haven't lost that extra info, it's often not conveyed in Western modes (usually just the abstract "scale") but has continuously (hasn't been rediscovered; there have been and continue to be practitioners of Byzantine liturgical music) kept to contemporary times.

[Zane]

Though many Western music academics would readily refer to a use of modes in jazz or rock or even some historical use of modes by recognized icons such as Debussy or Stravinsky, once any mode has been combined with Western harmony (whether it's tonal, atonal, pantonal, textural or whatever), it ceases to be modal. Period. Study any one of these forms of modal music in its own environment outside of relative Western influence (if you can), and you will then begin to understand why.

Not accurate. If you are talking about "functional harmony", then yes, it's true. If you are talking about using chords or sound aggregates, then you are completely wrong. Beides, the so called "church modes" are western, and cannot be study outside of western influence, because THEY ARE the western influence. We had more years of modal music than we had of tonal music (this last one only started around 1600, and more or less ceased to become the main current in the beginning of the XXth century.
Besides, there are many more modes than those you mention (from non-western cultures), some of them that are the creation of western composrs, like Messiaen. Modes do not have to have seven notes, they can have less (five or six notes) and they can have more than seven too.

... but I do implore the more open minded to please, please do become just a bit more knowledgeable about a non-Western musical tradition that could be termed modal by learning from an accomplished musician or two.

Again, modes are not exclusive of western musical tradition. Quite the opposite.

The opposite, though, would imply that they are separate from Eastern music tradition which is not at all true and is one of my main points. I wasn't suggesting that the church modes be studied outside Western influence. That would be impossible. The crux of it though is that they AREN'T just Western influence, as they themselves came from the confluence of many cultures, the bulk of which could distinctly be termed "Eastern". The large part of the Byzantine empire covered what is now modern-day Turkey, historically the site of a confluence of many cultures. Of course there are MANY more modes than those I mention, and yes, of course modes can have more or less than seven notes. Again, it really doesn't matter if it's functional harmony or really any type of harmony in the Western sense. I'd argue, for instance, that every time someone has combined Western harmony (again functional or otherwise) with the Indian raga system, the result is something very different from the origin and intent of the original modes (ragas) in use. It's still music, but (in my and many others' minds) has left behind much of the subtle beauty inherent in the original modal system.

[jancivil]

We all agree on (hopefully):

Modes are not scales or in a "key" at all.

Doesn't matter, I could quote ad nausium endless learned musicians that begin the introduction of modes by referring to them as either a scale, a scale form, a scale type, or part of a diatonic collection. They will all refer to a tonic or a keynote to imply what we think of as key.

So, since you lack even the interest to see if you can understand points, what you do is to annihilate the difference, 'it doesn't matter', in favor of an ad populum consensus mixed with (a posture of) fallacious appeal to authority, but not even that, the weight is given to people that would supposedly (you "could" but you didn't even) shore up your crap here.

Zane then goes on to grant modes coloring western type of music, with chords and all. Sure, but the way it actually works - meaning what we are going to experience with our ear - is that the tonic for the mode is in place for long enough time for the thing to be itself and work its magic, or it isn't, it doesn't. If the harmonies belong to a key, the mode highly tends to be subsumed by the key. This is not an opinion, this is based in what happens, the actual effect.

Mode vs key, IE: I just looked at a transcription for Sinister Footwear III, def. E Lydian and the key sig is given as five sharps. Five sharps is the truth, B major is not the key however.
There is no key. It is not a meaningful thing to say. None of the modes belong to a key.

What doesn't matter is who you, unequipped to do your own real mental work I guess, would take the word of. You simply are not dealing with it on the level.

They will all refer to a tonic or a keynote to imply what we think of as key.

&, every Indian musician I've ever seen on the internet or ever had a conversation with calls SA 'the tonic'. It does not imply anything; it states 'here is 1'.

This is simply your mistake. The supposed authority of people that you think shore up your mistaken notion of it does nothing. These fictitious entities aren't even saying what you want them to say, it's all you trying to make language work for you in this obtuse exercise of trying to compete with people that fully, actually understand the ideas.

What is the key of E Lydian? E? E has four sharps, ie., A natural and not A#. It isn't B, five sharps, because the key of B has a B tonic. So sure, a useful understanding doesn't matter to you, you're interested in something else here.