Diatonic modes vs circle of fifths

[jancivil]

So, in order to say these modes were not built by fifths, you're going to have to pretend the intervals that make it up aren't what they are, aren't based right here. Sorry, no.

[jancivil]

Yes, the key word here is tuning. Tuning what?

No, & that's totally intellectually dishonest to even try. You have said something unsupportable and now you're scrambling. If you are trying to tell me about scales before this method, I know you're bullshitting me and I have to disengage.

[jancivil]

HOW WERE THEY BUILT? Pointless debate. You have something quite more recent that this system of intonation needing to be built otherwise than I have asserted. NOW, you're going to say that is untrue because surely there was music before this system? Which is to say that Gregorian Chant's roots are in that music which none of us have ever heard, that MUST be interpreted based in the things that were recorded, which is right here in 'Pythagorean tuning'. And as you try to seem like you're right you cherry-pick 'tuning' out of that. That's just stupid and flagrantly dishonest.

[JumpingJackFlash]

HOW WERE THEY BUILT? Pointless debate.

You're right it is pointless, because we know how they were built. As I said, they were originally built by combining Greek tetrachords.

[jancivil]

Which for you must have happened out of the ether or in an intellectual vacuum. No, it's OBVIOUS, albeit not to you with your head up your ass, that 'tetrachords' theory is based where I said it was.

Sorry, I HAVE to disengage from you, this is total rubbish.

[JumpingJackFlash]

You know music existed long before Pythagorus... don't you?

[fmr]

I'm not applying 'modern thinking'. It is obvious from "Pythagorean tuning" that 3:2 was extrapolated (if there is some objection to calling that 'the fifth', I don't care) out to 12 iterations where it was noticed it didn't quite make unity and an adustment made. The very basis for scales in much of the world IS here. If you look at 1/4 comma for meantone, that basis is in the diesis 128:125. We do NOT arrive at these things in a vacuum. It looks like to me you aren't considering the statement ("however you want to put it"). "Stacking", multiplying 3:2. I believe it happened. Look at the material, look at Pythagorean tuning.

I see this Pithagorean "prove" all over, yet, there is no document about the ancient greek music that relates Pithagoras to their used system. Actually, it's believed that Pithagoras built a system "different" from what the Greeks were actually using, which makes more sense, since he is a late greek, and the greeks were making music (and tragedies) way before he even existed.

Besides, gregorian chant is believed to descend from the hebraic and byzantine rites, not greece. If the greeks influenced the romans, the romans the byzantine, the jew influenced the romans and the romans the byzantine, and whatever came into the catholic church in the west, is something still obscure - most probably, it was an amalgama of influences, that slowly became a system in it's own right. Claiming it comes from the greeks, just like that, is absurd, since there are no proofs, and evidence tells us quite the opposite.

This because, from what we know, the greek system is quite different from the gregorian modes, both in construction as in intervals, and it is accepted they used quarter tones in one of the tetrachords (the enharmonic), and a chromatism in the chromatic tetrachord: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... tetrachord

I think this part of the music history needs further investigation, since it is very badly explained.

Just to end, Pithagorean scale was never used, AFAIK. All atempts to use some kind of meantone temperament failed, because it's not practical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone_temperament

The temperaments commonly used in the baroque, when tonal music became stronger, were Kirnberger, Valotti and Werckmeister, all of them irregular temperaments. They were not based in any scientific approach, but rather an empiric one, based on experience and hearing. In these temperaments, the fifths vary, and are different from one to the other.

[jancivil]

the very word 'tetrachord' is based in this 'Pythagorean Intonation'. That is where it comes from. Look it up.

[fmr]

the very word 'tetrachord' is based in this 'Pythagorean Intonation'. That is where it comes from. Look it up.

So, what was there before he was born?

[JumpingJackFlash]

gregorian chant is believed to descend from the hebraic and byzantine rites, not greece.... Claiming it comes from the greeks, just like that, is absurd, since there are no proofs, and evidence tells us quite the opposite.

I agree there were probably several influences at work in the origin of the melodies themselves, but the initial theory surrounding the ecclesiastical modes as a method of categorising Gregorian chant is directly related to the Greek (deliberately so).

it is accepted they used quarter tones in one of the tetrachords (the enharmonic), and a chromatism in the chromatic tetrachord:

That's true, but the "diatonic genus" quickly became the most common and most favoured.

the very word 'tetrachord' is based in this 'Pythagorean Intonation'. That is where it comes from. Look it up.

Semantics aside, that's meaningless.
All this Pythagorus stuff is mythical at best, and most of it is apocryphal. None of his writings have survived. Music however has survived (based on our diatonic pitch set) from several centuries from before he was born.

[fmr]

it is accepted they used quarter tones in one of the tetrachords (the enharmonic), and a chromatism in the chromatic tetrachord:

That's true, but the "diatonic genus" quickly became the most common and most favoured.

I may accept that, mostly because the other tetrachords would be very difficult to sing

However, how would that led to the different gregorian modes? Doesn't make sense to me.

My theory is that christians started to sing hymns and psalms like the jews did in th temple (after all, the first christians were born jews). Christianity started to spread through Asia Minor, where it was mixed with the greek culture of the colonies. The singing got mixed, and eventually changed into some kind of mix. Later, that singing tradition was brought to Rome, where it evolved further. From Rome, with the adoption of christianism, it spreaded and was still evolving, to the pont popes started worrying with the chaos, centuries later. Some monks by order of pope St. Ambrose, first, and pope St. Gregory later, started to compile the approved chants, and found that they could be grouped by ambitus, style and neumes used. This led to the creation of "modes". It's much more rational and believable than some "greek inspiration" coming out of nowhere.

Of course, other chants, and secular singing, were still in practice, and things didn't stop to change.

Plainchant appeared before the gregorian modes, not the opposite. There was no theoretical building, just common practice.

[yessongs]

shortcut to understanding modes: There are 2 ways people look at modes. One they relate to a single key like the key of C. The other is to use all the keys that contain a C which is the most useful way. Now to do this you need only memorize this formula. Go backwards from your key by 2 whole steps so in C this is Ab. Now everynote in Ab is a root key that contains a C this is because Ab is a backwards major scale or a major scale played backwards from C. This is something that is useful because I now know that if I play these 7 keys I am playing a key that relates to C.

C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C.
1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The numbers represent the modes you would be playing in were 1 = C ionian and you go by the traditional order of modes using C as the root.
If you played in C dorian it would be in the key Bb.
if you played in C phrygian it would be in the key Ab.
if you played in C lydian it would be in the key of G.
so on and so forth

For guitarists this is a better way to approach the use of modes since we are constantly improvising over a scale diatonically using patterns. This allows us to shift tonality much more easily since we can calculate the modes as they relate to a tonal center much faster this way.

[JumpingJackFlash]

shortcut to understanding modes

That by you is a "shortcut"?
You posted something like this before, and sorry, but it still strikes me as illogical, needlessly complex and not making a great deal of sense. And you're still mixing up modes with keys. I fail to see the use.

If you know the "traditional order of modes" (as you called it), then if you really want to find the major scale that shares the same notes as the mode in question (note the wording there), all you have to do is just go down by the required number of notes. So if you call Dorian the "second" mode for example, just go down a (major) second to find the major key that shares the same notes (again, note the wording). So D Dorian shares the same notes as C major. Phrygian you'd go down a (major) third, Lydian down a (perfect) fourth and so on. - Surely you can see that's much easier?

If you played in C dorian it would be in the key Bb.

You can't be in both C Dorian and Bb major at the same time. They may share the same notes, but the difference is in where the centre or "home" is; C or Bb (respectively).

[fmr]

shortcut to understanding modes: There are 2 ways people look at modes. One they relate to a single key like the key of C. The other is to use all the keys that contain a C which is the most useful way. Now to do this you need only memorize this formula. Go backwards from your key by 2 whole steps so in C this is Ab. Now everynote in Ab is a root key that contains a C this is because Ab is a backwards major scale or a major scale played backwards from C. This is something that is useful because I now know that if I play these 7 keys I am playing a key that relates to C.

C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C.
1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The numbers represent the modes you would be playing in were 1 = C ionian and you go by the traditional order of modes using C as the root.
If you played in C dorian it would be in the key Bb.
if you played in C phrygian it would be in the key Ab.
if you played in C lydian it would be in the key of G.
so on and so forth

For guitarists this is a better way to approach the use of modes since we are constantly improvising over a scale diatonically using patterns. This allows us to shift tonality much more easily since we can calculate the modes as they relate to a tonal center much faster this way.

This post reminded me an anecdote someone told me years ago: Two guys went to the races. At a certain point, one of them exclaimed: "Jesus, so many horses!". His fellow answered: "Yep, there's seventeen horses.". Surprised, the first guy asked: "How did you manage to count them?", to wwhat the second guy replied: "Easy! I counted the legs and divided by four."

But at least this guy knew they were horses.

[yessongs]

It makes sense to me and acts as a really cool way to visualise modulating to other keys. You see these notes are also to be found closely related to each other on the circle of 5ths as well so that can serve as a popular tool as well in fact other than G the rest of the notes in the key of Ab are all to the left of C in the circle of 5ths and all connected to each other. As you investigate this methodology it helps if you are a guitarist as well as a keyboardist because we who play both instruments approach music a lot differently than those who just play and master one instrument and we visualize the notes in a different way. A lot of guys will write music and try to keep every note diatonic. I like to experiment and play in lots of different scales at the same time, so I need to do things in ways that allow me to shift my mind faster and experiment without working my mind too much and this to me is a simpler way to approach modes. All I need to do a s a guitarist is move a pattern down by a backwards major scale which accomplishes the same thing. For instance if I want to play c dorian I need to move my pattern down a whole step if I want to paly phrygian I move the pattern down 2 whole steps then whole step whole step and half step. Basically you are taking your scale patterns down the neck along a backwards major scale pattern. We see such patterns more easily on a guitar than on keyboards so this approach works for us if your a keyboardist ony then this may not be an effective strategy.