Your thoughts on modes

[jancivil]

Wikipedia.

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 confusioncreated by realting 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.

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

There are a number of things I encountered, including that one of course, that are really not good.

Again, the relationship of ostensibly six other modes to major is just coincidental. 'Major' there is Ionian in the first place. Without sidetracking into where that came from and that history, Ionian is not Major per se.

Touching on the cross-influence of 'non-west' to 'west', in the 19th century 'Bilaval Thaat' arose in Hindustani conception of the raag. Same heptatonic scale as Ionian to a modern westerner. You'll see a raag posted at youtube 'Western mode'. But the raags do not show a particular embrace of 'leading tone to tonic'. The opposite, the ^7 is a plateau or subdominant typically, in fifth relationship to ^3 or third relationship to the P5. The prescribed 'vakra' or break in the line indicates something other than the tonic as its next move. It could really dwell on ^7 and feel quite rested there. It does not sound at all like 'Do, a deer...', or 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow'.
So 'Major' given as mode 1 is dodgy to begin with, it's a coincidence. Ionian is apparently a mode in its own right.
Major has connotations. Yes, we say 'major mode' vs 'minor mode' vis a vis common practice period music, but I don't like Major confounded with Ionian so completely.

So again, Dorian is the second mode of Ionian is the same statement as Ionian is the seventh mode of Dorian as far as it goes to a modern musician. IE., giving weight to one of them like it's the font where the others flowed from is just a mistake out of an incomplete education.

[jancivil]

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.

With what full harmony? I can't tell you what to call it without that part. Does it sound like Phrygian? Which it's going to do if E is clearly what we take as the tonic; if we get full-on G7 to C, it may not be anything other than a cute name for C major. If it sounds like Phrygian it is.

[ghettosynth]

...

[MadBrain]

With what full harmony? I can't tell you what to call it without that part. Does it sound like Phrygian? Which it's going to do if E is clearly what we take as the tonic; if we get full-on G7 to C, it may not be anything other than a cute name for C major. If it sounds like Phrygian it is.

Yes, the tonic is E. Yes it sounds like Phrygian. No, it doesn't have G7 C.

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.

It doesn't necessarily have D# (presumably in a B7 Em cadence). Since you get to chose between F and a temporary F#, this gives you a pretty large selection of dominant-like chords to use in cadences: in addition to the traditional V (B7 Em; Bm7 Em; B7b5 Em; Bm7b5 Em), you can base your dominant chords on the bII degree (Fmaj7 Em; F7 Em) thanks to the so called "tritonic substitution" (see Jazz chord theory for more details). And that's without going into the various plagal cadences (Dm E; Am Em...). The presence of "F" gives you a pretty good substitute for the leading tone (except that it goes downwards instead of upwards).

Obviously this is NOT Maqam Kurd, or any sort of pure modal form. It's not going to have Seyirs, it's not going to have a dominant on anything else than the 5th degree, the scale starting note is going to be rigorously equal to the tonic and the "finalis". This is western music's "phrygian mode", so of course it's going to have all sorts concessions to harmony like borrowed chords and chromatic alterations (because that's western music's whole schtick!), and in the end it's going to look like E minor with F# replaced with F.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

[JumpingJackFlash]

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.

It's interesting that you say that; "the result is something very different from the origin and intent of the original modes". I agree with you. But then, this same principle is true of the church modes in connection to earlier systems too:

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.

That might be slightly overstating the connection.
The Byzantine mode system was not the same as the medieval church modes. There is a link there yes, but there is an equally important link to the ancient melodies (e.g. "Gregorian chant") of the Roman Catholic church. Around the ninth century, Frankish theorists essentially synthesised elements of each to produce something new - what later became known as the medieval church modes (though they began only as a classification system before taking on a life of their own).

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.

That's because the Byzantine formulae are not applicable to the church modes.
As I said, the medieval church modes and the Byzantine system are different things. The link was more conceptual than musical - i.e. it didn't generally evolve that way in practice, it was mostly fused in theory texts. It borrowed some of the names and organisational principles (like the idea of having eight categories divided into four "authentic" and four "plagal" for example), but the musical details were by no means the same.

[Zane]

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.

It's interesting that you say that; "the result is something very different from the origin and intent of the original modes". I agree with you. But then, this same principle is true of the church modes in connection to earlier systems too:

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.

That might be slightly overstating the connection.
The Byzantine mode system was not the same as the medieval church modes. There is a link there yes, but there is an equally important link to the ancient melodies (e.g. "Gregorian chant") of the Roman Catholic church. Around the ninth century, Frankish theorists essentially synthesised elements of each to produce something new - what later became known as the medieval church modes (though they began only as a classification system before taking on a life of their own).

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.

That's because the Byzantine formulae are not applicable to the church modes.
As I said, the medieval church modes and the Byzantine system are different things. The link was more conceptual than musical - i.e. it didn't generally evolve that way in practice, it was mostly fused in theory texts. It borrowed some of the names and organisational principles (like the idea of having eight categories divided into four "authentic" and four "plagal" for example), but the musical details were by no means the same.

Yes, I've admitted that the Byzantine modes are not the church modes. They are analogous to them. This is historical fact. Other than reiterating that, I hesitate to debate any of the above points, as I don't think it would add to the discussion. I cannot say that I am an expert at Byzantine liturgical music or ancient Greek music. My humble background is a BA in Music Comp and ten years of study in the U.S. and Turkey in Turkish Art Music.
But I've got a renewed interest in this subject because of this thread, so tell you what:
I'm headed to Houdetsi, Crete in August to deepen my studies of yaylı tanbur and Turkish makam with Evgenios Voulgaris. He has a very strong background in Byzantine music. I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask him some questions regarding the nature of the relationship between Byzantine and church modes. I'm sure it will be more illuminating than looking up internet articles on the subject. Maybe he could point to any connections between Byzantine and Ottoman music as well! Perhaps actually demonstrate some of the points with music! Whoa, now I'm getting excited!

[fmr]

But I've got a renewed interest in this subject because of this thread, so tell you what:
I'm headed to Houdetsi, Crete in August to deepen my studies of yaylı tanbur and Turkish makam with Evgenios Voulgaris. He has a very strong background in Byzantine music. I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask him some questions regarding the nature of the relationship between Byzantine and church modes. I'm sure it will be more illuminating than looking up internet articles on the subject. Maybe he could point to any connections between Byzantine and Ottoman music as well! Perhaps actually demonstrate some of the points with music! Whoa, now I'm getting excited!

If he is in direct contact with current practitioners of music in byzantine modes, you may be pretty sure he will be immeasurably more reliable. As I showed, Wikipedia can be sometimes very unreliable.

Feel free to post to me by PM your conclusions. I will be deeply grateful to you for that.

[fmr]

It doesn't necessarily have D# (presumably in a B7 Em cadence). Since you get to chose between F and a temporary F#, this gives you a pretty large selection of dominant-like chords to use in cadences: in addition to the traditional V (B7 Em; Bm7 Em; B7b5 Em; Bm7b5 Em), you can base your dominant chords on the bII degree (Fmaj7 Em; F7 Em) thanks to the so called "tritonic substitution" (see Jazz chord theory for more details). And that's without going into the various plagal cadences (Dm E; Am Em...). The presence of "F" gives you a pretty good substitute for the leading tone (except that it goes downwards instead of upwards).

Obviously this is NOT Maqam Kurd, or any sort of pure modal form. It's not going to have Seyirs, it's not going to have a dominant on anything else than the 5th degree, the scale starting note is going to be rigorously equal to the tonic and the "finalis". This is western music's "phrygian mode", so of course it's going to have all sorts concessions to harmony like borrowed chords and chromatic alterations (because that's western music's whole schtick!), and in the end it's going to look like E minor with F# replaced with F.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

Now, you deeply awaken my curiosity. Can you post a score of that music? Seems really interesting to me, and sharing my personal view of what should a modern approach to music using modes. Not really modal music, but not tonal anymore, too.

[codec_spurt]

But I've got a renewed interest in this subject because of this thread, so tell you what:
I'm headed to Houdetsi, Crete in August to deepen my studies of yaylı tanbur and Turkish makam with Evgenios Voulgaris. He has a very strong background in Byzantine music. I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask him some questions regarding the nature of the relationship between Byzantine and church modes. I'm sure it will be more illuminating than looking up internet articles on the subject. Maybe he could point to any connections between Byzantine and Ottoman music as well! Perhaps actually demonstrate some of the points with music! Whoa, now I'm getting excited!

I envy you in a kind of Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider kind of way - I wish I was going with you!

You're not Brendan from Dead Can Dance by any chance, are you?



Saltarello:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcmpBCXOgVI

-----------------
The saltarello was a lively, merry dance first mentioned in Naples during the 14th century. The music survives, but no early instructions for the actual dance are known. It was played in a fast triple meter and is named for its peculiar leaping step, after the Italian verb saltare ("to jump").
---------------------

Rakim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itwL5y0He-k


A few million people have listened to this on youtube, yet no one has ever heard of Dead Can Dance.

I just bring this up as I have always wondered where Brendan got them from. He must have done some serious research. I know that he went to Brazil and studied percussion there, which he now teaches in Ireland with his brother, last time I looked. The man is a genius. And every time I feel crushed by the genius of the Kruder and Dorfmeisters of this world, I look to Brendan to see true other worldly genius. Glossolalia for the win!

I wish you well on your journey. Perhaps you could report your findings?

[JumpingJackFlash]

the Byzantine modes are not the church modes. They are analogous to them.

Agreed.

I hesitate to debate any of the above points, as I don't think it would add to the discussion.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.
Personally, I would much rather discuss things like this, but it goes over the head of most people here who dismiss is as "irrelevant".

I'm headed to Houdetsi, Crete in August to deepen my studies of yaylı tanbur and Turkish makam with Evgenios Voulgaris. He has a very strong background in Byzantine music. I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask him some questions regarding the nature of the relationship between Byzantine and church modes. I'm sure it will be more illuminating than looking up internet articles on the subject.

Indeed, please feel free to share anything you learn, I'm sure it would be interesting.
And I'm not sure if that last remark was meant disparagingly; implying that my only source of knowledge is the internet, but I assure you that you couldn't be further from the truth (my PhD relates to this very field).

[fmr]

I'm headed to Houdetsi, Crete in August to deepen my studies of yaylı tanbur and Turkish makam with Evgenios Voulgaris. He has a very strong background in Byzantine music. I'm sure I'll get a chance to ask him some questions regarding the nature of the relationship between Byzantine and church modes. I'm sure it will be more illuminating than looking up internet articles on the subject.

Indeed, please feel free to share anything you learn, I'm sure it would be interesting.
And I'm not sure if that last remark was meant disparagingly; implying that my only source of knowledge is the internet, but I assure you that you couldn't be further from the truth (my PhD relates to this very field).

Maybe we should start a club named "modes fanatics"?

[MadBrain]

It doesn't necessarily have D# (presumably in a B7 Em cadence). Since you get to chose between F and a temporary F#, this gives you a pretty large selection of dominant-like chords to use in cadences: in addition to the traditional V (B7 Em; Bm7 Em; B7b5 Em; Bm7b5 Em), you can base your dominant chords on the bII degree (Fmaj7 Em; F7 Em) thanks to the so called "tritonic substitution" (see Jazz chord theory for more details). And that's without going into the various plagal cadences (Dm E; Am Em...). The presence of "F" gives you a pretty good substitute for the leading tone (except that it goes downwards instead of upwards).

Obviously this is NOT Maqam Kurd, or any sort of pure modal form. It's not going to have Seyirs, it's not going to have a dominant on anything else than the 5th degree, the scale starting note is going to be rigorously equal to the tonic and the "finalis". This is western music's "phrygian mode", so of course it's going to have all sorts concessions to harmony like borrowed chords and chromatic alterations (because that's western music's whole schtick!), and in the end it's going to look like E minor with F# replaced with F.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

Now, you deeply awaken my curiosity. Can you post a score of that music? Seems really interesting to me, and sharing my personal view of what should a modern approach to music using modes. Not really modal music, but not tonal anymore, too.

I'm not sure I could get actual parts but I could link to some songs (damn, these examples were harder to find than I expected):

Phrygian:
- The "battle" song from FF7

Dorian:
- Paranoid Android (1st part)
- Random Virt funk song

Mixolydian:
- Birdland
- C Jam Blues (and most other blues)
- Random song from the Final Fantasy Tactics Advance soundtrack

Lydian:
- "Mind of a dreamer"

[jancivil]

I'm gonna go ahead and post this.

Particularly, the second of these two sections as proof of concept of mode vs scale.

The mode is F G A B C D Eb. Now in a certain 'jazz theory' they'll say this is the fourth mode of (C) melodic minor. That's a popular conception, modes of melodic minor.
It's quite useful as a way of coming up with scalar material. But this is a mode per se, because F is the 'tonic', full stop.
At the end I make it cadence in C. Not through harmony, just making the line do specifically that. As a modal player, I can make it happen with no help, there isn't a bass or anything.

IE: C minor you may as well consider a scale here; the other thing is a mode. F is the center until I wanted to make C the center, & I did that.
F G A B C D Eb is what it is. That isn't a key through itself. Call it a mode, give it a name 'Lydian b7' and that name's meaning is gone with C tonic.
You could state it on paper by a 'signature' with the one flat, Eb. That does not denote a key.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETsth0s ... 7yZ0o0kJJc

The first section of this uses a hexatonic mode, F, G# or Ab, A, B or Cb, C, Eb.

[Zane]

It doesn't necessarily have D# (presumably in a B7 Em cadence). Since you get to chose between F and a temporary F#, this gives you a pretty large selection of dominant-like chords to use in cadences: in addition to the traditional V (B7 Em; Bm7 Em; B7b5 Em; Bm7b5 Em), you can base your dominant chords on the bII degree (Fmaj7 Em; F7 Em) thanks to the so called "tritonic substitution" (see Jazz chord theory for more details). And that's without going into the various plagal cadences (Dm E; Am Em...). The presence of "F" gives you a pretty good substitute for the leading tone (except that it goes downwards instead of upwards).

Obviously this is NOT Maqam Kurd, or any sort of pure modal form. It's not going to have Seyirs, it's not going to have a dominant on anything else than the 5th degree, the scale starting note is going to be rigorously equal to the tonic and the "finalis". This is western music's "phrygian mode", so of course it's going to have all sorts concessions to harmony like borrowed chords and chromatic alterations (because that's western music's whole schtick!), and in the end it's going to look like E minor with F# replaced with F.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

Absolutely. I just realized a perfect example in my world of Western harmony mixing with modality:

I play Turkish yaylı tanbur. When I play the instrument solo, it is what I'd call purely modal. Any harmony results from my own playing technique of plucking a drone note to emphasise the modulation to a new tonal centre, for instance as well as the particular tuning (thus overtones which are predominant). When I play this instrument with a guitarist (and we've just met), I generally tell them to play what they are comfortable playing. This is because (it's easier, most Western trained guitarists are not familiar with purely modal styles other than single-note solos), the instant that they start playing chords, it's all about the harmony (modulation of chords), and I can certainly colour the music with modal flavours (being careful to not stray for too long outside Western 12-tone equal temperament), but the music as a whole stays decidedly harmonic because of the nature of the tuning, fret placement and playing style of the guitarist.

[datroof]

I'm sure you're right. And of course, everyone knows that you're never at fault.

- that isn't my view. I regret going into the meaning of de facto, actually. I'm at fault for whatever I'm at fault for. Your story about me I think is more founded in you, however.

Once upon a time, there was an old woman who - without realizing it - stepped in a big pile of dog crap and got it all over her shoes. She eventually started to notice the smell, and immediately began blaming it on the people around her, saying things like: "everywhere I go, everyone smells like dog crap". Many other people noticed it too, and one after another they tried to tell her: "hey lady, you've got dog crap on your shoes". And one after another, she dismissed their comments, saying things like : "your comment says more about you than it does about me" and so forth. And so, that old lady walks around with dog crap on her shoes to this very day, always blaming the smell on others, and always dismissing their comments. The end.