symmetric modes and chords

[JumpingJackFlash]

now that we're into semantics, what's the difference between a scale and a mode?

This question is a can of worms in itself.

A good way to think about it, is that a scale is the progression in steps of ascending or descending notes (usually for one octave). The scale is defined by the order of intervals within it. It starts on a specific note, and the scale is usually named after this starting note.

Whereas a mode is a way of ordering the notes of the scale. It combines both the type of scale, and its starting pitch. Modes generally have less of a hierarchal relationship between the various notes.

I suppose all modes are scales, but not all scales are modes.

There are many other ways of defining them though, and in some cases, the distinctions are blurred.

An interesting debate would be, what came first, the scale or the mode? - Is it like the chicken and the egg?

[rachmiel]

yes, but i'm saying that all these variants:

CDEFGABC
DEFGABCD
EFGABCDE
FGABCDEF
GABCDEFG
ABCDEFGA
BCDEFGAB

are simply patterns of intervals that repeat at the octave and that have "root" pitches.

[rachmiel]

i'm starting to remember why i lost interest in conventional theory ...

[Toxikator]

Yes. And each one is a "Scale"...

The Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian, to be exact.

each is also a "mode" of all the others.

So if you're composing "in the key of" (using the scale) ABCDEFGA, and you're trying to compose a melody using the third scale degree (suppose you just played the III chord and want your melody to suit it), you would play in the mode CDEFGABC.

Conversely, if you were to compose using the scale CDEFGABC, and you wanted to play a melody on the 6th scale degree (say you were playing a vi chord) you would use the mode ABCDEFGA

[nuffink]

i'm starting to remember why i lost interest in conventional theory ...

Is there an unconventional theory?

[Toxikator]

i'm starting to remember why i lost interest in conventional theory ...

It requires effort and learning?

[rachmiel]

> Is there an unconventional theory

o ja! that's where i live. :-)

[rachmiel]

>> i'm starting to remember why i lost interest in conventional theory ...

> It requires effort and learning

that doesn't bother me so much. rather: that it has its rigid laws and jargon and dos/don'ts ... all of which bores me.

[Toxikator]

rachmiel! Of all people I'd have figured YOU would at least get it.

Would you argue, when designing chemical compounds, that "chemistry is just a bunch of rigid laws and jargon and dos/don'ts"?

Of course not. Music Theory aims to explain, not to regulate. The semantics are just lines we draw for the sake of definition. They have absolutely no regulatory effect on the actual music.

[herodotus]

Music Theory aims to explain, not to regulate. The semantics are just lines we draw for the sake of definition. They have absolutely no regulatory effect on the actual music.

That is an attractive and lofty goal, but it is not really an accurate picture of theory as it is commonly taught.

To this day, students are taught not to use, say, parallel fifths in basic theory classes. If they use them on a graded project, they will get marks taken off for making this 'mistake'.

I do think that things will improve. But theory is not quite at the state of pan-traditional objective investigation that you have described.

[Toxikator]

They ARE mistakes, though. The theory class isn't teaching them to compose, it's teaching them to understand and practically apply the principles of Fux and his "species counterpoint" systems.

You have to learn one phase at a time. If you use Major Tritone progressions on a tonal composition exam you'll get marked off. If you write homophonic parts for a 4-part harmony exercise you'll get marked off. Is this because they're "not recognized" or "incorrect" techniques? No. It's because they have no bearing on the lesson

[rachmiel]

> Music Theory aims to explain, not to regulate

perhaps ... but, frankly, explanations often kill mystery for me. and music without mystery is ... sad. yes, i write lots of articles that touch on issues of music theory. but i always try to infuse them with a sense of mystery and openness to what lies beyond.

that said, it took me a looooooooooooooooong time to get where i am musically, and i went through a rigorous conservatory education in theory, composition, piano, conducting. so i understand the potential benefits of embracing music theory, but it's just not for me anymore. i'd rather make up my own theories ... :-)

which brings me back to ... symmetrical pitch sets (see, i've avoided the use of mode and scale) that can be used to create horizontal entities (melodies) or vertical entities (chords).

[vurt]

i'm starting to remember why i lost interest in conventional theory ...

i follow only one theory when it comes to music...

"do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

[vurt]

They ARE mistakes, though.

only if theres a rule, which you keep saying there isnt, just regulations...

[herodotus]

They ARE mistakes, though. The theory class isn't teaching them to compose, it's teaching them to understand and practically apply the principles of Fux and his "species counterpoint" systems.

You have to learn one phase at a time. If you use Major Tritone progressions on a tonal composition exam you'll get marked off. If you write homophonic parts for a 4-part harmony exercise you'll get marked off. Is this because they're "not recognized" or "incorrect" techniques? No. It's because they have no bearing on the lesson

But these aren't 'principles', they are rules. They are not taught as one method among many, they are taught as the method. And why pray tell, are the far from scientific assertions of an otherwise forgotten composer named Fux considered to be of such basic interest that students must learn how he composed before they can learn how, say, John Lennon composed?

I have no objection to rules from a personal standpoint, mind. They can engender some forms of personal growth. But music theory is not some internally consistent body of rational knowledge. It is a mess of anecdotes and rules of thumb, some simple acoustical principles, and a whole bunch of misunderstood tradition.

There are efforts to improve it. Writers like Elliot Antokoletz and George Perle and John Rahn are all doing splendid work.

But as long as vague nonsense like this is 'taught' as 'theory':



it has to be acknowledged that things still have a long way to go.