Tonic and dominant

[piscione]

JJF, what is the point you are actually trying to make?

A scale of D to D with no accidentals is a D dorian scale. There is no way around this. Play that scale over a Dm7 and it's D dorian. In fact, play it over anything and it's still D dorian. Jazz players do this all the time, playing modes over other chords, and the modes are recognizable, at least to anyone who knows how to recognize them.

Randy

[fmr]

JJF, what is the point you are actually trying to make?

A scale of D to D with no accidentals is a D dorian scale. There is no way around this. Play that scale over a Dm7 and it's D dorian. In fact, play it over anything and it's still D dorian. Jazz players do this all the time, playing modes over other chords, and the modes are recognizable, at least to anyone who knows how to recognize them.

Randy

Where did you learn this?
First - there is no such thing as "D dorian scale" (saying this simply means you have no idea what the mode of D is).
Second - Why would just a sequence of notes from D to D, plain and simple mean "D dorian" (admiting that you could do this and have D dorian, which I don't)?
Why couldn't it be A minor? Or C major? Or G major modulating to C major? Or F major modulating to C major? Or D minor modulating to A minor? Can you really define something with just a sequence of notes from D to D and a chord of minor 7th?
As JJP pointed, if you play a sequence of chords of ii7, V7, I (d minor 7, which acts as a replacement of the IV degree, G major 7, which is the dominant 7th, one of the pillars of harmony, and C major - tonic) you are in C major, no matter wat you play over it. There can't be anything more tonal than this.

[piscione]

Where did I learn this, from experienced jazz musicians and a few years of classical theory. Interesting approach 'though, so perhaps I'll follow through. Where did you get your background? So there! Check the definition of the word "scale" by the way, it still works.

Although it can be fun to entertain the children, how would you define a dorian scale? Keep it simple for me, okay? Can you back up your thoughts with any actual proof. After a bit of research, I've been unable to get any evidence that what you are saying should make sense.

Randy

[JumpingJackFlash]

A scale of D to D with no accidentals is a D dorian scale.

Maybe as an isolated set of notes, but real music doesn't work that way, and those notes in isolation are not sufficient to qualify an entire section of music as being in "D dorian". It entirely depends on context.

A scale of D to D with no accidentals could also be called Hypomixolydian, Kafi Thaat, Mela Kharaharapriya, Raga Bageshri, Bhimpalasi, Nayaki Kanada, Sriraga, Ritigaula, Huseni, Mischung 5, Gregorian nr.8, Eskimo Heptatonic, Yu, Hyojo, Oshikicho or Banshikicho.

But of course, not all of these names are going to be appropriate. - It depends entirely on context. In some situations you would get laughed at for using an inappropriate name, just as you would for going on about 'D dorian" in a piece which was obviously in C major.

[fmr]

Where did I learn this, from experienced jazz musicians and a few years of classical theory. Interesting approach 'though, so perhaps I'll follow through. Where did you get your background? So there!

Although it can be fun to entertain the children, how would you define a dorian scale? Keep it simple for me, okay?

Randy

Okay, didn't meant to offend anyone. I know jazz musicians use these kind of "mnemonics", and it's okay if they feel comfortable, and it helps, but things are becoming out of control when you come with these "dorian scale" things, and start mixing apples and oranges to a point where there is a complete theoretical building raising over some severe mistakes (IMO).

Back into the mode question. The keyword here is MODE... So, a MODE, as I said repeatedly, is a self contained system, a "mood, a way of being. Each mode has it's own formulas, for raising the melodies, for developing them and for the cadences. It's basically the same that happens with the Major and minor modes, which are the remainers of that old system (if you put aside the functional harmony, which is another building).
I'll try to give an oversimplified and brief explanation:
1. There isn't a dorian scale.
2. The MODE of D has a certain kind of intervals, which can be found if we play the white notes from D to D. But you can play the same mode with any notes, as long as you preserve the intervals (in the middle ages, there was no fixed pitches, that's why modes are always noted with natural notes)
HOWEVER...
3. If you are playing in the mode of D, you NEVER play from D to D (see more about this below). You usually build a melody raising from D to A. You play around A (the repercusa, the main note of the mode, around which it grows and develops). Then you descend from A to D again.
4. You will avoid any sequence of notes that go straight from F to B or B to F (because it will create a dissonance which would destroy the spirit of the mode). That's why you never play from D to D straight.
5. If you want a cadence upward, you will jump from A to E and then make a sequence E, D, C, D. The C may be raised or not.
6. If you want variation, you may "modulate" (change mode). Usually you do this by going to the "plagalis" (the mode related with the "authentic" with which it shares the same "finalis", but has different "repercusa").
7. There is no harmony in modes. If you want, use pedal notes over D (finalis) and A (repercusa). You may also use empty fifths (D-A and A-E).

This is an oversimplification of what is the D mode, erroneously called Dorian mode, suitable for everybody (I hope)

[piscione]

Context makes sense, I'll go with that. Although, context is not necessarily set by the harmony. As you've mentioned, context can be set culturally as well.

Randy

[piscione]

FMR, I still think most of what you are writing is pure obfuscation and you did not clarify your background. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree. I doubt it will be possible to come to any sort of helpful conclusion in the context of a forum.

Did the OP ever get his/her original question answered?

Randy

[Arr0wHead]

Fmr, I appreciate the aproach with sense an manners. A much more interesting way to discuss these things.

I'm not discussing an overall piece, simply relation of the modes to the Ionian. ii chord is only of importance in RELATION. IE when discussing relative modes, if your ii is your i, you're in the relative dorian. So yes, I'm not discussing anything left to right on the staff. Just staying vertical to explain relative modes. Just like the ii is minor in Ionian, so is the second mode.

In the context of modality, that ii chord is the i in Dorian. That iii is i in Phryigian. etc... - as we've both said a few times now, the context it's used in is what makes it modal. EFGABCDE over a I V in Cmaj isn't phrygian, still C major. But take that iii, slide everything over to make it your i chord, and you've got a phryigian i-V# cadence.

Context is everything, but you cannot learn every context at once. You can learn all the modes.

[JumpingJackFlash]

simply relation of the modes to the Ionian. ii chord is only of importance in RELATION. IE when discussing relative modes, if your ii is your i, you're in the relative dorian.

You seem to be confusing chords with modes.

Also, why are you always taking Ionian as a starting point?

It might be true that what we now call the Dorian mode starts on the second degree of the Ionian mode (using the same notes), but it also starts on the third degree of the Locrian, the fourth of the Aeolian, the fifth of the Mixolydian, the sixth of the Lydian and the seventh of the Phrygian.

You see, everything is relative.

[fmr]

I keep seeing references to the Ionian mode, which is something that never existed outside of a couple of music treaties. Can those that talk about the Ionian mode point me to a composition done in that mode during the modal period (means until the XII century more or less)? I'd like to see that.
I know that there are millions of musics I don't know about, but...

[JumpingJackFlash]

I keep seeing references to the Ionian mode, which is something that never existed outside of a couple of music treaties.

Quite right.
Neither the Ionian nor the Aeolian modes were mentioned until the 1547 treatise Dodekachordon by Glareanus. This was towards the end of the modal era when the roots of tonality has already been sown.

Both were unnecessary as the use of the Bb in the Lydian and Dorian modes easily produced the same effect.

[fmr]

I keep seeing references to the Ionian mode, which is something that never existed outside of a couple of music treaties.

Quite right.
Neither the Ionian nor the Aeolian modes were mentioned until the 1547 treatise Dodekachordon by Glareanus. This was towards the end of the modal era when the roots of tonality has already been sown.

Both were unnecessary as the use of the Bb in the Lydian and Dorian modes easily produced the same effect.

Precisely. That's why I feel creepy when I see people saying the the Ionian mode is our modern major mode. It isn't, because it never existed. Our modern major mode is the F mode with the B flat (the very first alteration in music, first used around the X century). And the minor mode is actually the D mode with the same B flat.
As a matter of fact, in latin languages, the lowering sign is still called "bemol" which come from the ancient words "b molle" (late latin / early french, which means B "weakened" or "softened" - in this case lowered, and that was noted as a round b, as opposed to the "b durum" which is noted as a square b, and is the b natural). This is also called "b quadro", italian expression which means means b square, referring to the way it is noted. This is the expression still used for the natural alteration sign in latin countries.

[tapper mike]

Egad I'm shaking my head and my fist at the same time.
Please pick up a book on music written in the 20th or 21st century on popular music.

[Deathh Cvlt]

This is very helpful.

[Arr0wHead]

simply relation of the modes to the Ionian. ii chord is only of importance in RELATION. IE when discussing relative modes, if your ii is your i, you're in the relative dorian.

You seem to be confusing chords with modes.

Also, why are you always taking Ionian as a starting point?

I'm not. Modes and chords are built the same way from their related scale, are they not? So in talking about the relativity of modes, chords are a great way of defining context. If we were in a lesson, I'd play you a chord, and play the mode over it, to let you hear the sound of that mode.

For the same reason all my theory books did - because in western music it's the primary mode, and what most of "music theory" is written around. It's also where most people start, thus the most likely common ground you'll find when discussing theory with people of all levels.

You're not wrong in any way, just looking at things with a very unique perspective in a more advanced way than necessary for a discussion on modes. I actually like the way you think, and it probably leads to some great music I'm betting.