Your thoughts on modes

[Zane]

Before "jazz, pop, rock and other forms" picked up modes (or what they call modes, which iis what we have been arguing, and you seem to do not understand), composers like Debussy, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Orff and others picked modes and created modal music in "a completely different conceptualization of what modal music is". But they created still MODAL MUSIC. They have vertical structures in their music, just those are carefully chosen to not destroy the modal character (the intrinsic character of EACH mode, the same way that major and minor have intrinsic character), therefore, they keep them away from the functional harmony.

With some exceptions (Miles Davis created at least a record where he actually played really modal pieces, if I'm not mistaken), "jazz, pop, rock and other forms" don't create modal music, they are just creating plain and simple TONAL music, but pretend to give it a more "conceptualized" (pretentious?) character by calling the scales used "modes". Problem is you cannot be simultaneously in two different worlds, and tonality and modality ARE two different worlds. All the rest is bullsh...

BTW: They don't pick up the church modes, because they even don't know what they are. When I see mentions to Locrian and Ionian, I see they don't.

Cool. I wasn't debating who did what first, so I'm not sure why you mentioned that. If you really understand modal music in it's original conception of being completely devoid of harmonic consideration (it was and is about modulation between melodic types) then you'd probably not argue for legitimacy of use of modes in the Western classical world but not in rock, pop, etc. It's music. It's all legitimate.

[Zane]

There are also many examples in modern jazz, pop, rock and other forms that have taken the so-called church modes (a Westernized bit of one of the above traditions) and utilized these modes in combination with harmonic structures. This is a completely different conceptualization of what modal music is. It is equally legitimate as a musical practice, of course. But until this is realized, you really are arguing over apples and oranges.

Until what is realized? As Fernando said and I have gone on a bit about, tonal music is not modal music.

I wasn't referring to you.

[jancivil]

Why can't it be a question in general about your statements?! As musical practice goes, there is modal practice and harmonic practice.

If you really understand modal music in it's original conception of being completely devoid of harmonic consideration (it was and is about modulation between melodic types) then you'd probably not argue for legitimacy of use of modes in the Western classical world but not in rock, pop, etc. It's music. It's all legitimate.

What is the sense of this? The use Fernando speaks of in Debussy et al does_not confound harmonic function paradigm with modal usage, or he wouldn't have brought it up!
Whereas there is talk here, in_this_thread which does confound the two things; there is, in jazz 'chord scales' which uses mode names and certain people (& in this thread) believe that modes are simply scales with names, I suppose, and start talking about harmonic function and modes like they're the same thing. They aren't, though.

[jancivil]

BTW: They don't pick up the church modes, because they even don't know what they are. When I see mentions to Locrian and Ionian, I see they don't.

Cool. I wasn't debating who did what first, so I'm not sure why you mentioned that. If you really understand modal music in it's original conception of being completely devoid of harmonic consideration (it was and is about modulation between melodic types) then you'd probably not argue for legitimacy of use of modes in the Western classical world but not in rock, pop, etc.

He mentioned those two because in the Church music historically, they don't happen. Ionian was merely nominative, a fabrication by a theorist after the fact of the use of Lydian in musica ficta; Locrian simply didn't occur.

I feel pretty sure the reference to eg., Debussy can be showed to be modal qua modal.
(You are using this word 'legitimate' argumentatively and for me the argumentation is just sophistry, I think it adds nothing to the discussion.)

So, meaningfully, the Church modes and modes today, in jazz or rock, or in Indian music etc (where jazz people borrowed from), are not really quite the same idea; 'modulation between melodic types' has to do with that Church music, but in modern usage it rather does not apply.

[ghettosynth]

...

[fmr]

Right or wrong, they're probably thinking about tracks like the following and the associated discussion presented in this Attack Magazine article. These conversations always seem to take the turn to "that's not modal music, you're treating scales as modes and it isn't correct", when I think people are quite happy to change the flavor of the question to "I just wanted to hear some thoughts on the use of modal scales in dance music."

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."

All I have to say is: This is a completely erroneous and misconceptual text, these scales aren't modes AT ALL, this is not correct, this is a bunch of ignorant statements made by ignorant people which are being pretentious, talking about what is supposed to be a "new way" of doing things, and just spreading the ignorance and the erroneous information. 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.

If you really want to play modal music, you have to first understand modes, and that means you leave functional harmony behind your back (as classic composers did more than 100 years ago, when they decided to create something "new"), so no more of those so many times mentioned here "chord progressions", since those 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.

[fmr]

BTW: They don't pick up the church modes, because they even don't know what they are. When I see mentions to Locrian and Ionian, I see they don't.

Cool. I wasn't debating who did what first, so I'm not sure why you mentioned that. If you really understand modal music in it's original conception of being completely devoid of harmonic consideration (it was and is about modulation between melodic types) then you'd probably not argue for legitimacy of use of modes in the Western classical world but not in rock, pop, etc.

He mentioned those two because in the Church music historically, they don't happen. Ionian was merely nominative, a fabrication by a theorist after the fact of the use of Lydian in musica ficta; Locrian simply didn't occur.

Just to develop a little on what I first said, and Jancivil added: There are just EIGHT church modes, which can be looked as FOUR pairs, because the secondary ones (plagal) has the "finalis" (end note) of the principal ones (authentic). They are: Protus (Dorian, Mode of D, first tone), Deuterus (Phrygian, Mode of E, third tone), Tritus (Lydian, Mode of F, fifth tone), and Tetrardus (Mixolydian, Mode of G, seventh tone). The plagal modes start a fourth below, but always end in the same note, and have the same names of the authentic, with the prefix "hypo" (then, they are Hypodorian, Hypophrygian, Hypolydian and Hypomixolydian, but more commonly designated as second tone, fourth tone, sixth tone and eigth tone). Each mode has a different "tone note" (kind of dominant, which was called "repercusa"), around which the mode developed. When the composer changed from one repercusa to another, he was changing mode, hence the term "modulation" which is still used today.

There are many pieces that contain in their name the "tone" in which they were mainly composed, like for example "toccata in the fourth tone", or "fantasia in the first tone".

You may say this is history, but this is what was established by the praxis along centuries, and this is what the modal system is, as based in the "church modes" (which aren't exclusively "church", since they were also used in common music, like so many folk songs that are still sung today all over Europe and also known in the USA). They are called church modes simply because the main documents were preserved by the church, as it happen with so many other historical documents in the middle age.

[fmr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdjwy0PEKA

I was listening to this (not all of it), and I notice two things:

1. Basically, there is no harmony, which is one of the things that's being debated here (modes and harmony doesn't fit together).

2. I notice that, about half of it, the melody evolves to a mode that's closer to what I studied as the hispano-arabic mode, which has a major third and a minor second, and also a minor sixth and a major seventh (all these melodic intervals from the base note, which is G in this case). The minor second and major third gives the mode its oriental flavour, and indeed the mode of E also has those, but the difference is that the mode of E doesn't have a major seventh (which works as a leading tone).

There is another mode I studied which a personal favourite of mine, the gypsy mode, which has a minor third, an augmented fourth, a minor sixth and a major seventh. This is great because it works as if it was a minor mode with two tonics (the augmented fourth creates a strong atraction to the fifth), and we can work with it harmonically by constantly jumping from one to the other, and it also gives way for excellent modulations.

[MadBrain]

How do you suggest calling the set of 6 commonly used diatonic scales in pop music (major, natural minor, "phrygian", "mixolydian", "dorian", "lydian" - I'm using the the de facto most common names here) if we shouldn't call them "modes"?

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

When someone asks this:

I just wanted to hear some thoughts on those modes in Dance music (sorry, I didn't say that this way)

Right or wrong, they're probably thinking about tracks like the following and the associated discussion presented in this Attack Magazine article. These conversations always seem to take the turn to "that's not modal music, you're treating scales as modes and it isn't correct", when I think people are quite happy to change the flavor of the question to "I just wanted to hear some thoughts on the use of modal scales in dance music."

Do you understand the thread so far? What is the actual thought you want to convey here? Do you find that there is real harmonic function in that sort of music generally?
I do doubt it to the degree your points are at all salient. So, when the thread takes the turn as it did, to confuse the issue of definite harmonic function with modes, I recognize that there are people that read the board beyond the OP.

So for a long time the thread has been about modes. You want to set it right to focus on the OP? I think you're wrong, I think if they have got a hint about modes in whatever, chances are they want the flavor of a mode, which is more mode qua mode than 'modal scales'.

Additionally it seems to me like you could learn from actually reading the thing, as in my estimation you aren't making a point like you think you are.

[fmr]

How do you suggest calling the set of 6 commonly used diatonic scales in pop music (major, natural minor, "phrygian", "mixolydian", "dorian", "lydian" - I'm using the the de facto most common names here) if we shouldn't call them "modes"?

First, there are not "six" commonly used diatonic scales, but just one. You can start a diatonic scale in any degree and ending it in any degree. Any student past the first grade in piano already knows that. If you want to call it names, call it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. At least these are neutral enough to not induce people into something they are not. By calling them what they clearly aren't you are just showing ignorance. But hey, there were ignorants being elected presidents, so, what's the problem, right?

The "de facto" names are not "de facto". They have meanings, and they are not what you are givng them. By persisting in these mistakes, you and all the other that are using it are spreading the mistake, and creating more and more confusion, making it more difficult for people really interested in learning things properly.

[fmr]

If you really want to play modal music

Yes, that's the point of my post, I don't think that people who start these threads "really want to play modal music", they just want to use the scales. You should be able to immediately deduce this from the examples that they give, right? So, when you insult them and tell them how they're "not playing real modal music", not only are you not being helpful, you're the one missing the point, not them.

If people find the Attack Magazine article helpful, then they're clearly not ready to "really play modal music", even if they wanted to. That Attack Magazine article has helped quite a few people, as evidenced by the comments. I don't often see comments like that in these threads here on KVR.

If you persist in being ignorant, and spreading erroneous information, it's up to you. But the title of this thread is: "Your thoughts on modes", not "Your thoughts on scales that we call modes, but use as scales, because we really don't want to play modes, but pretend to, just so it looks like we know more about music than we actually do".

Is the article helpful? I don't know. For me it isn't. It is misinformative, full of mistakes, and then gives examples that have nothing to do with what's written. It's written by people cultivated in what is becoming a kind of "pop culture" which is nothing but disguised ignorance. This doesn't surprise me, when I see lots of threads about "chord progressions" as if that was all that matters, when serious composers left those basic way of think for more than 100 years already. And since what matters now is to make a good video with good looking girls dancing an animated choreography, and all the rest is merely decorative, really, what's the point of some serious studying and knowledge, right?

[jancivil]

If you really want to play modal music

Yes, that's the point of my post, I don't think that people who start these threads "really want to play modal music", they just want to use the scales.

This statement seems like you don't know what you're talking about. Actually I'd think you would understand it ok, but it looks like you don't know any more about what 'the OP' wants than I do and you have a clause that doesn't have the meaning you think it must. What does 'just use the scales' actually MEAN?

You should be able to immediately deduce this from the examples that they give, right?

NOPE. Generally I think they want something other than major/minor functional paradigm even to begin with, or we'd have that in the music more. And no. Someone hears about 'Phrygian mode' on the internet and there is more of a reason for it, having to do with the flavor of it. But you tell us, what does "just use the scales" actually mean? EDIT: I'm going to challenge that. If you use Phrygian all white keys and the center is not E, what is the scale? How is the term even meaningful now?

So, when you insult them and tell them how they're "not playing real modal music", not only are you not being helpful, you're the one missing the point, not them.

If people find the Attack Magazine article helpful, then they're clearly not ready to "really play modal music", even if they wanted to. That Attack Magazine article has helped quite a few people, as evidenced by the comments.

EDIT: You're outside of factuality in a significant way here. I didn't insult the original poster. I told the person that said there is no difference between functional use of chords and modes basically they had no business making a blog, they were more interested in talking than listening. I believe that to be an accurate assessment. JJF says 'with respect' before making his corrections, but I don't have automatic respect like that. The combination of total cluelessness and that type of overconfidence is miserable.

Another fact you didn't have use for: The OP mentioned a few tunes. One of the, the Coldplay number identified as Dorian, I believe IS Dorian. The Hans Zimmer, not so much.

So what went on here? You got tired of seeing a discussion more geared towards knowledge so here's this attack, which isn't even founded in reality.

This POS article helped a few people do what exactly? I think dumbing down is not the best thing to do. Is it de rigeur to get way down here like we're talking to someone with an as-yet unformed mind? The thread gets expansive and you want to set it back? How reactionary. And you're here to counsel us on helpfulness.

I started playing modal music with no internet and no clue, no booklet or anything, out of my ear, shortly after I started on guitar. I'd hear something in Hendrix and know it wasn't the usual blues sound, then I heard Ravi Shankar in the Monterey Pop film. I think someone can read about these modes in these threads and possibly have their purview expanded, but for you this must be a bad thing.

[ghettosynth]

...