Modal Harmony vid series

[Boardwalk]

If one can do the weirdest things with notes and it all sounds plain simple.. then you are talking about this composer:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9VFhwxkmjc

[fmr]

I hate to say this, as I really am an advocate of learning music theory and educating yourself, but it just seems dogmatic to say "modes come from pre tonal music and therefore can never be invoked in a tonal context ever." Language exists for communication, and if the concept of modes is a useful shorthand for "a scale with the same notes as would make up Phrygian mode," I don't see an issue. Is anyone really writing Renaissance style counterpoint?

Fact 1: Modes come from pre-tonal music, but also from post-tonal music and from many other cultures (I already mentioned indian music and arab music as examples of modal music) and are used EVEN NOWADAYS to create music (modal music). Actually, there is much more modal music than tonal music. And there are many more modes than those being discussed here. I already quoted Messiaen, someone that studied deeply the modal universe, up to the point of creating his own modes.

Fact 2: Tonal music is based and relates to harmony, more than anything. However, music evolved a long time go from that basic dimension, and incorporated many other dimension (reintroducing techniques from the modal period, like counterpoint, and creating evolving harmonies, in what became known as progressive tonality, up to the point of completely dissolve harmony, with Schoenberg)

Fact 3: Only popular urban music and its derivatives (including jazz) are still stuck in tonal universe (although some jazz already moved away from it). Pretty much any other kind of music already moved on. This doesn't mean that tonality and harmony are not used, simply that they are seen as just one palette of many at our disposal.

Fact 4: What jazz people call modes are just mnemonics of sequences of notes whose only relation with the modes are the fact they share the same notes. C Major and A minor, BTW, also share the same notes. By using such terminology to designate completely different things, people are simply creating a mess that leads to such abominations as "modal harmony" and things like that. Refusing to understand that modes have nothing to do with their practice is persisting in the error, and will no lead to anything positive.

Fact 5: Music theory doesn't exist to tie anyone and prevent anyone to create music in any way they like. Theory usually comes after the facts. When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it. When Schoenberg followed that path until reaching atonality, he wasn't aware that atonality was his ending point. When Debussy started to use modes, he probably wasn't deliberately reusing the same modes that were abandoned for centuries just because. He simply felt THAT was his path. So, no, I don't see an issue in jazz people using modes IF THEY REALLY USE MODES. What is an issue is calling a mode to something that clearly is NOT a mode, but a sequence of notes within a tonality, where certain notes are simply substitutes, that give a different colour to that tonality, but don't interfere with its tonal character in any other way. Just because they coincidentally share the same notes with a thing that came from the pre tonal past doesn't mean they are the same, or even close.

Fact 6: Avoiding confusion is not being dogmatic. If some people decide to call beans to kidneys just because they look like beans may seem harmless, but the moment they decide to replace my kidneys with beans because for them they are the same things become more serious. That's why different things must have different names and designations. Because they are different. Even when they look similar.

Regarding your question if there are people writing Renaissance style counterpoint. Renaissance style no, almost for sure, but counterpoint still has a place in music, and will ever have. Not Renaissance counterpoint, but XXI century counterpoint. And eventually using modes.

[MadBrain]

Because we will always have those whom cling to their beliefs.

As for the HM guy analyzing a song in the F lydian mode and saying it's in C. Someone doesn't know the HM world as well as they should.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6b-T_tNwtc

Note he isn't covering the C Major scale. He identifies the scale/key/mode as the E phrygian

First of all, here is his description of the "phrygian scale in the key of E" (just this phrasing is already giving me an headache - it's like saying the scale of C Major in C): 1, Flat 2, Flat 3, 4, 5, Flat 6, Flat 7, 8. What the hell is this? What is he talking about? Flat 2 of what? Flat 3 of what? And then he plays the whole mode as a scale (WRONG WAY), and what do I hear? C Major, of course.

"Flat 2" means that the scale has a note a minor 2nd up from the root (F). Same for "Flat 3" (= minor 3rd = G), "4" (= 4th = A), "5" (= 5th = B), "Flat 6" (= minor 6th = C), "Flat 7" (= minor 7th = D).

Because it has a minor 3rd, it's really mostly the same thing as E minor, except that the 2nd is minor instead of major (F instead of F#).

And yes, pop music "phrygian" is played as a scale, as are other pop music "modes". In the context of metal, this is totally appropriate.

If this is the best you got to show someone who understands modes, what I have to say is that its pathetic. And the assertion: "If you play a power chord progression, it fits seamlessly in whatever "scale" you are soloing..."

Given that power scales are empty fifths, I classify this as the discover of the century I can't even understand how people do videos to "explain" stuff like this

He perfectly understands pop-music "modes", which are different from Gregorian chant modes as we've established. And yeah, power fifths are kindof stupid, but they also sound really good on distorted guitars.

If this is music theory, it was learned in some alien planet.

Welcome to planet pop!

[Boardwalk]

"When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it."

@fmr

Huh? Where did you get that from? Liszt was already a composer when he was a child. He got incredibly rich. In fact he was the first modern superstar. And he acted like that. And he was fully aware of his innovations.

"Liszt, in some of his works, supported the relatively new idea of programme music – that is, music intended to evoke extra-musical ideas such as a depiction of a landscape, a poem, a particular character or personage (by contrast, absolute music stands for itself and is intended to be appreciated without any particular reference to the outside world).

Liszt's own point of view regarding programme music can for the time of his youth be taken from the preface of the Album d'un Voyageur (1837). According to this, a landscape could evoke a certain kind of mood. Since a piece of music could also evoke a mood, a mysterious resemblance with the landscape could be imagined. In this sense the music would not paint the landscape, but it would match the landscape in a third category, the mood."

Wiki

[MadBrain]

I hate to say this, as I really am an advocate of learning music theory and educating yourself, but it just seems dogmatic to say "modes come from pre tonal music and therefore can never be invoked in a tonal context ever." Language exists for communication, and if the concept of modes is a useful shorthand for "a scale with the same notes as would make up Phrygian mode," I don't see an issue. Is anyone really writing Renaissance style counterpoint?

Fact 1: Modes come from pre-tonal music, but also from post-tonal music and from many other cultures (I already mentioned indian music and arab music as examples of modal music) and are used EVEN NOWADAYS to create music (modal music). Actually, there is much more modal music than tonal music. And there are many more modes than those being discussed here. I already quoted Messiaen, someone that studied deeply the modal universe, up to the point of creating his own modes.

Well, obviously if you call all music traditions that aren't completely drenched in chords and polyphony "modal", then there are tons of modal music yes.

Fact 2: Tonal music is based and relates to harmony, more than anything. However, music evolved a long time go from that basic dimension, and incorporated many other dimension (reintroducing techniques from the modal period, like counterpoint, and creating evolving harmonies, in what became known as progressive tonality, up to the point of completely dissolve harmony, with Schoenberg)

I'd say that what distinguishes tonal music is both harmony AND multiple simultaneous lines. While the multiple lines aren't as independent as in the old polyphonic styles, you'll still find at least an independent bassline in every song, plus the lines formed by the accompaniment (top notes of chords, arpeggios, disco palm muted guitar etc) in addition to the melodic line. Good luck finding THAT in Arabic or Indian music.

Fact 3: Only popular urban music and its derivatives (including jazz) are still stuck in tonal universe (although some jazz already moved away from it). Pretty much any other kind of music already moved on. This doesn't mean that tonality and harmony are not used, simply that they are seen as just one palette of many at our disposal.

Yeah ok, harmony is marginal in avant garde music, hip hop, and in some types of electronic music.

That still leaves a LOT of harmony in Occidental music - Jazz, Rock, Folk, Pop (except the Milkshake song and similar stuff), most stuff used to score video games/movies/TV... It's been the prevalent musical idiom for many centuries now, and it has still been totally dominant in the West in the 20th century (and actually has spread a lot worldwide).

Fact 4: What jazz people call modes are just mnemonics of sequences of notes whose only relation with the modes are the fact they share the same notes. C Major and A minor, BTW, also share the same notes. By using such terminology to designate completely different things, people are simply creating a mess that leads to such abominations as "modal harmony" and things like that. Refusing to understand that modes have nothing to do with their practice is persisting in the error, and will no lead to anything positive.

Wait, so when an Indian musician writes a song using a "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's a mode, but when a pop musician writes a song using the same "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's just a "mnemonic of a sequence of notes" as soon as he layers chords or an independent bassline on it?

Fact 5: Music theory doesn't exist to tie anyone and prevent anyone to create music in any way they like. Theory usually comes after the facts. When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it. When Schoenberg followed that path until reaching atonality, he wasn't aware that atonality was his ending point. When Debussy started to use modes, he probably wasn't deliberately reusing the same modes that were abandoned for centuries just because. He simply felt THAT was his path. So, no, I don't see an issue in jazz people using modes IF THEY REALLY USE MODES. What is an issue is calling a mode to something that clearly is NOT a mode, but a sequence of notes within a tonality, where certain notes are simply substitutes, that give a different colour to that tonality, but don't interfere with its tonal character in any other way. Just because they coincidentally share the same notes with a thing that came from the pre tonal past doesn't mean they are the same, or even close.

Ok but we still need a NAME for this stuff.

Fact 6: Avoiding confusion is not being dogmatic. If some people decide to call beans to kidneys just because they look like beans may seem harmless, but the moment they decide to replace my kidneys with beans because for them they are the same things become more serious. That's why different things must have different names and designations. Because they are different. Even when they look similar.

Everybody's been calling them beans for a few decades by now­.

Regarding your question if there are people writing Renaissance style counterpoint. Renaissance style no, almost for sure, but counterpoint still has a place in music, and will ever have. Not Renaissance counterpoint, but XXI century counterpoint. And eventually using modes.

Sure, but 21st century counterpoint will use 21st century modes... which are used by 21st century musicians that are heavily influenced by tonality and harmony. The result isn't going to look anything like Gregorian or Renaissance modes, so chances are you won't even recognize them as modes...

[fmr]

"When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it."

@fmr

Huh? Where did you get that from? Liszt was already a composer when he was a child. He got incredibly rich. In fact he was the first modern superstar. And he acted like that. And he was fully aware of his innovations.

I am talking about something different, something that only in the mid of XXth century became more or less established theoretically, yet was a practice since mid XIXth century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tonality

[Boardwalk]

"When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it."

"Progressive tonality is the music compositional practice whereby a piece of music does not finish in the key in which it began, but instead 'progresses' to an ending in a different key or tonality."

"Chopin explored progressive tonality in his instrumental music as well (see his second ballade), and efforts by him and other progressive composers such as Hector Berlioz and Franz Liszt (whose 1855 Dante Symphony begins in D minor and ends in B major), had a profound effect on later composers, such as Richard Wagner, whose harmonic developments in Tristan und Isolde and Der Ring des Nibelungen were altogether different from the use of tonal language by previous composers."

@fmr

Liszt wasn't aware of it when he applied a change of key in his compositions. That is what you *conclude*. And even worse: Wagner wasn't aware of it when he was inspired by Liszt. While Wagner was a pioneer when it comes to change of key references! The facts.
In other words: we are speaking of two somnambulants while a person who calls himself 'fmr' is *fully aware* of the theories Liszt and Wagner used. You must be really something, not?

Some rules of logic in a debate:

1. ad hominem: invalid argument based on someone’s reputation, good or bad.

2. strawman: invalid argument based on substituting the conclusion of another argument for the present argument.

3. analogy: invalid argument, similar to the strawman, based on how one situation is like another.

[Boardwalk]

@fmr

PS I did not chuckle because Metal Guy was fooling around in a practical sense, I chuckled because of his presentation. Totally different arguments to make one chuckle.
However, I did not put the good intentions of the Metal Guy commentator into question.

You do present yourself an elitist, but you can't back that up. As others also have mentioned before in this thread.
Speaking of awareness -the key word of debate- I maybe did present myself as an elitist too, though, I am fully aware of the fact that was just a pretention; I am basically educated in music theory. And that's it.
To become an elitist, like Liszt for instance, one has to put a lot of practice in it. While I did not even present a finished production yet!

[fmr]

"When Wagner and Liszt created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it."
@fmr
Liszt wasn't aware of it when he applied a change of key in his compositions. That is what you *conclude*. And even worse: Wagner wasn't aware of it when he was inspired by Liszt. While Wagner was a pioneer when it comes to change of key references! The facts.
In other words: we are speaking of two somnambulants while a person who calls himself 'fmr' is *fully aware* of the theories Liszt and Wagner used. You must be really something, not?

Some rules of logic in a debate:

1. ad hominem: invalid argument based on someone’s reputation, good or bad.

2. strawman: invalid argument based on substituting the conclusion of another argument for the present argument.

3. analogy: invalid argument, similar to the strawman, based on how one situation is like another.

@ Boardwalk

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that "Liszt wasn't aware of it when he applied a change of key in his compositions"? And that "Wagner wasn't aware of it when he was inspired by Liszt"? (whatever that "it" refers to). Are you needing glasses or something? "two somnambulists", really? Is that what you extract of my writing?

I said exactly this: "When Wagner and Liszt (should be Liszt and Wagner) created progressive tonality, they probably weren't aware they were creating it". I said "probably". And I maintain that. Why? Very simple. We are well documented on the musical thinking of Schoenberg, because, besides being a composer, Schoenberg was also a theoretician and a teacher, and left abundant literature about his musical thinking. We even have a reasonable knowledge on the musical thinking of Mahler, namely thorough his pupils, like Bruno Walter. Now, regarding Liszt and Wagner, we can only speculate about what their musical thinking in terms of composition techniques was, because the sources available are very sparse. I have my thoughts on the subject, shared by many others, BTW, about what was Wagner aiming to, but it's not on call here.

I just quoted those composers as examples of people who influenced decisively the course of tonality up to its complete dissolution. We could trace a path that starts with Liszt, through Wagner (these two influenced each other mutually), Bruckner, Mahler, and finally Schoenberg, each one going one step further into the complete dissolution of tonality.

[Boardwalk]

@fmr
So now we are discussing probability?
What has Schönberg to do with your statement that Liszt and Wagner were probably not *aware* of the key changes in their works? Because that's the only thing where progessive tonality stands for: a change of tonic during a composition.
How could they possibly not be aware of a key change? We are speaking about two well known composers here. They know what a tonic is. Trust me.
Besides, I'm outa this *debate* for I have no clue what you are trying to explain. No hard feelings.

[nineofkings]

Progressive tonality isn't just incorporating key changes into a composition, it's ending the composition in a different key. High classical music modulated all over the place, but it eventually ended in the same key. Progressive tonality expanded that idea by making the entire piece, in a sense, a long modulation.

But back to modality vs tonality: I think this is being obscured by different considerations of tonality. fmr is talking about tonality in a strict sense, implying functional harmony. MadBrain, and I suppose myself as well, are talking about tonality in a looser way, more in line with its use in modern music. My theory prof would call this "dysfunctional harmony," essentially anything can go to anything but it's all tied together in normal tonal relations to the home key. This removes a lot of the hierarchy of cadences. Plagal cadences are treated as being just as strong as authentic cadences, or sometimes any random chord can be interrupted and you're back at tonic. It's very much "tonal" in that it has a definite tonal center in a major or minor key, but it's not necessarily functional. In these cases, modal thinking is more in line with the way the music acts because you're not bound to a certain method of progression. Saying you have a melody in Phrygian isn't necessarily wrong.

[fmr]

My theory prof would call this "dysfunctional harmony," essentially anything can go to anything but it's all tied together in normal tonal relations to the home key. This removes a lot of the hierarchy of cadences. Plagal cadences are treated as being just as strong as authentic cadences, or sometimes any random chord can be interrupted and you're back at tonic. It's very much "tonal" in that it has a definite tonal center in a major or minor key, but it's not necessarily functional. In these cases, modal thinking is more in line with the way the music acts because you're not bound to a certain method of progression. Saying you have a melody in Phrygian isn't necessarily wrong.

This is interesting, and is the first time I heard it, BTW. If it is as you say, then it seems closer to the pre-tonal days of the Renaissance polyphony, where cadences existed, but otherwise the harmonies very much followed the melody lines, without any hierarchical resemblance. Not pure modality anymore, but still not tonality either. Can you elaborate more on that "dysfunctional harmony"?

[nineofkings]

It's the way most pop music is constructed, especially if it's at all folk-influenced. For instance, this song has two chords, I and iii (the singer's voice is an acquired taste, I'm just pointing it out as a harmonic example): http://youtube.com/watch?v=FxngHusQN2g

And this one, in the refrain, goes IV-I-v-IV. Any kind of five going straight to a IV is not functional, but is incredibly common in pop: http://youtube.com/watch?v=N9edV7e1-78

In the first instance especially, the chords are to support simple melodic motifs, like the root-leading tone melody in the verses being supported by I-iii. It could've gone to a V, but the iii sounds more melancholy, so they alternated between those chords, function be damned.

[jancivil]

In an historically informed view of music theory a mode cannot have harmony or be harmonized as simple as that. If it is a mode is melodic, it's use is melodic.

If you stack triads under that mode you build an implicit hierarchy of attractions and functions and suddenly you have tonality.

So, bottom line, in music theory there isn't "modal harmony". You either have a mode or you have tonal harmony.

As such, modes are melodic. And doesn't make sense to "harmonize" them. When you do it, you turn them into a scale with a hierarchical center. As such, you turn them into a tone row.

While I concur w. the general view that modal musical thought and the major/minor functional harmonic paradigm aren't compatible (& presents a real dichotomy), the conclusion there is, well, too conclusive. The stated premises are not really as overwhelming per se (or through the massive weight of tonal [dominant/tonic] function) as it may appear to you. The tendency to fall into that trap is a tendency, not necessarily fatal. Now if we buy that this capital H *Harmony* is The Definition for all possible consideration of the term "harmony" one supposes this conclusiveness works just as you like. But the dichotomy you assert isn't really a neccesary one. I will demonstrate, concretely, by a real example.

https://youtu.be/yAQ7BC4FPHA?t=48s

[The link itself cues up the video at the appropriate section at the Youtube, @ ca. 0:48.]

This section is definitely G Phrygian*. I will discuss one object that I could call a polychord (II & i, Ab & G minor), or, say II^7 9 #11 (#4) amidst what is certainly linear, contrapuntally-derived writing. (*: there is at least this one harmony (or chord) yet we find no looming hazard of Eb major whatsoever. Oddly enuff, I do modulate to C major in the end so I has left the building of 'modal' by definition in so doing.) This thing arrives some 20 secs in, @ ca. 1:08 of the whole.

One could say that I came to hear this color or emotion in course and directed lines to it, or that that sound at that moment works structurally, a crux point, and neither statement excludes the other's reality. (The threads of the counterpoint pretty much lead to 'i over bII' so to me 'polychord' is the more elegant statement.)

So no, there def. is no dominant/tonic function concern there but there is a function of Phrygian in the guise of a chordal object or harmony. If there be some golden premise to determine one's absolute disagreement with these statements one may just be proceeding dogmatically.
- Speakin' o' which, this statement that <other than within the dominant/tonic functionality the word 'harmony' must be incorrect> is in my experience entirely unique to fmr posts at KVR Audio Forum. So should you try and make that one stick at wikipedia you'll need to really cite it, or it will be deemed original work, a clear no go. (I say cite it here; no one is buying it, Fernando.) BTW, I think I first received the term 'quartal harmony' at Community College in '101 - Diatonic Harmony' from Webb Wiggins (not a dirty hippie but a master organist whose chief focus was JS Bach) around the same time I saw it in Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony".

Now I'll demonstrate, concretely in some music how quartal stacks work as chords and I'll indicate a type of function accruing from that construction. This is from the 1890s, Erik Satie in Le fils des étoiles. I encountered it and was struck by the fact of quartal planing ala McCoy Tyner some 70 yrs prior to this thing in jazz (also cf., Lennie Tristano). So I built some things on the piano score. NB: structurally the intervals between these chords in Act I - Prelude forms the Act I - Theme. My adaptation illustrates how each group of three iterations of the planed stack has a new center of gravity. Of course it does so in itself but my explication via writing parts really throws a light on this.

https://youtu.be/QAjLYa28g50

http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usi ... toiles.pdf

So there were a number of statements here that needed more scrutiny methinks.

[someone called simon]

...