Your thoughts on modes

[JumpingJackFlash]

you're obviously trying to derail this argument in pointless terminological directions on purpose.

Far from being pointless, terminology is the very essence of this "argument".
The whole point here is that the term "key" and the term "mode" are not equivalent. If you're going to use the terms, you should use them correctly.

[datroof]

It drives a lot of people away, which is too bad.

Check again the view count. Your assumption is just your assumption and your post is just such irony since your contribution is limited to coming in to toss insults.

I'm sure you're right. And of course, everyone knows that you're never at fault. In fact, anyone who might suggest that you're the main problem deserves a severe tongue-lashing. They deserve whatever vitriol you can hurl at them, those jerks.

[ghettosynth]

...

[JumpingJackFlash]

Getting all pedantic about the definition of key is a distraction to someone who just wants to fumble their way around a melody based on a different scale.

It's not being pedantic, it's being right as opposed to wrong.
These things exist for a reason; they are important. Just because some uneducated amateurs believe otherwise doesn't mean that they are right. One should promote knowledge, not ignorance.

[jancivil]

That said, it is no surprise to me that people think that A mode is a displaced scale played from root to root of the chord as that's exactly how many authors begin a discussion of modes. So they read these statements and want to know how they can make use of this sort of thing in some way.

Well, as I said twice now, if you want to do "E Phrygian", E is your center (or 'tonic' after a manner of speaking) and we are doing this because the sound of it is what it is.
We lean on the semitone down to the tonic and fifth in it typically; the character tones, F to E, C to B.
Use of modes, because we like the character of them; there are seven of these that are coincidental with 'major' in terms of a set of seven notes; they all have their own character. This has everything to do with the one fact; eg., the center of E Phrygian, all-white-keys is E. Full Stop. Here are the meanings of the word because this is the musical meaning. ("Just use them as scales" - you can't tell us what that is.) The value of modes versus 'major/minor' lives here, in the relationship of the set of tones to a specific solid center.

We avoid slapping harmonies on it that turn it into C major. I've said these things, which I believe are useful, many times in these threads. But you have your own story to tell about that regardless.

The things you brought in cannot be used, it's crap or it's just arguing for the sake of it. It's just a total waste of space.

[jancivil]

I'm sure you're right. And of course, everyone knows that you're never at fault.

- that isn't my view. I regret going into the meaning of de facto, actually. I'm at fault for whatever I'm at fault for. Your story about me I think is more founded in you, however.

[ghettosynth]

...

[MadBrain]

Getting all pedantic about the definition of key is a distraction to someone who just wants to fumble their way around a melody based on a different scale.

It's not being pedantic, it's being right as opposed to wrong.
These things exist for a reason; they are important. Just because some uneducated amateurs believe otherwise doesn't mean that they are right. One should promote knowledge, not ignorance.

I'd like to remind you that you've systematically come against any semantically close terms for "starting note" (which I'm trying to avoid because then someone is going to say "phrygian isn't just C major with a different starting note", and "starting note" is not specific enough because it doesn't really convey the meaning of "tonic"). Can't use "key". Can't use "tonality". Can't use "root note". "Tonic" would be sort of correct except it's in the wrong context (you wouldn't say "I transpose this to the tonic of E"). "Tonal center" is also correct but clunky and vague (and conveys the connotation of "this song has a very vague tonic", which is usually not true for the kind of music we're talking about).

[ghettosynth]

...

[mztk]

having just stumbled on the thread - which looks like it has desintegrated
into the usual webwrangling, unless i misread - and i'm a lazy untutored
non-player type getting curious about developing a more intuitive under-
standing of where i can go, and with what results, with scales and modes.
so i started looking at it, with a view to reducing it to 'templates' that
i could understand more easily.

i'm kinda surprised there aren't more simple software tools, or even
utility plugins devoted to educating us. you get 'transform' functions
in some DAWs but that restricts you to that DAW, whereas loading the
plugin could happen anywhere, even in savihost.

so i put up a thread on the synthedit forum with a load of charts i was
looking at, found via google image search on 'scales/modes/keys'
http://syntheditforum.boards.net/thread/49/
because i wanted to build a virtual machine for note selection with
(eek) logic - as you can see, i'm quite hazy on it all, but you'll find
some good charts on there, and what i was thinking of doing. kinda
dropped it for the time being - consider it a 1st step in my learning.
of course, trained musicians have a completely different take on all
this - but i just want to reduce it to something quicker to learn and
take in. if you see what i mean..
(and i strayed right off into other stuff too, anything of interest linked
to it)

[ghettosynth]

...

[jancivil]

That said, it is no surprise to me that people think that A mode is a displaced scale played from root to root of the chord as that's exactly how many authors begin a discussion of modes. So they read these statements and want to know how they can make use of this sort of thing in some way.

Well, as I said twice now, if you want to do "E Phrygian", E is your center (or 'tonic' after a manner of speaking) and we are doing this because the sound of it is what it is.

Yes, thanks. You often confuse my support of different approaches to my approach. Thanks, but I don't need your description of modes.

You f**king asked what I would say, but now it became you don't need it? And now you're about to ask exactly the same question. WTFF.
If you wanted to do modal you could use somebody's 'description'. Mine are pretty concise, maybe you don't relate to concise and you reduce that to 'a description'. You aren't here to learn and you have nothing to teach.

I don't have any notion of your approach, all you do is TOSS in here. Your support of different approaches? But by now you'd walked back your advocacy of the completely incompetent article you brought in; yet now it's useful, because people with no clue prefer things by other people with no clue, suiting your 'argument'.
WHAT different approaches?? Here is you crapping all over threads and through your wonderful language skillz that's now an alternative to people with a f**king clue?

You don't appear to understand the issue. At all.

So what do you tell the dance producer who's just learned that A mode is a displaced scale played from root to root of the chord

I would say as I am wont to say that that_is_not_what_a_mode IS. I'm sure I have done that many times. What is hard for you to grasp here? This is SERIOUSLY OBTUSE.

Do you really think that he's going to think much about it in either case?

All that I'm arguing is that people coming from that point of view find that simplistic approach useful. I know people like that, I doubt that you do. Useful here has a simple meaning, it means that they create music that they're happy with.

What the hell? So you're arguing leave the incurious types alone and quit trying to sort things out. You produce this exceedingly verbose pretense at an argument in order to try and make useless crap seem useful through this move. 'Useful' I think is based in 'use'. There is no use value in the article. There is no use in 'just use the modes as scales in EDM.'.

The things you brought in cannot be used, it's crap or it's just arguing for the sake of it. It's just a total waste of space.

By you, but you come at music very differently from many "EDM producers", many of whom sell more records in a week than you will in your lifetime, so you're kind of on weak ground telling them that their approach isn't valid, for them. People who find those approaches useful are not trying to be you, and I'm not even trying to criticize your view on music in any way, I respect it more than I respect their point of view, I just understand that their point of view is valid to them. Moreover, I think that I have some sense of how they will use ideas that you find invalid and I can see why they would think that articles like the one listed are worthwhile, and this thread is a waste of time.

It isn't about a point of view. There are statements with meaning and there is what you tried. What you want, 'they just want to use them as scales' will find no use value. These objects, 'modes' either function modally or they are subsumed in the major, particulary when one doesn't understand how chords do that. There is no 'just use phrygian as a scale in EDM' really. It will be 'E Phrygian' when E is central enough and it's given time to do its thing, or it isn't.

Worse than that, you're actually arguing argumentum ad populum fallacy in the worst way (which you know better than, but why not, if only so you can seem right in some way to come in here with this toss). Their valid "approach", because they sell, can't be spoken to at all. What happened was a couple of approaches that were wildly wrong and would mislead people, a couple of those were seriously arrogant and stupid so people are on edge; but bad ideas were countered strongly which you seem to take issue with so following that is you with what amounts to anti-knowledge.

It is a waste of space. I feel I have to counter it or I feel like I'm not being responsible. The dishonesty of some of these gestures pisses me off a bit. I'm not going to torture myself to find the most gentle way to respond to it, so it results in this whole tone, this whole perception of the joint and the peanut gallery joins in focused on that. But it is YOU stinking the place up. I'm trying to give people the real deal is all. You want to argue point of view; that's all you have and it's all about shoring up ignorance and pretending that ignorance is a alternative, valid approach and 'useful' now has a new meaning, according to how it comports with that POV.

As to the material, it looks like you don't know what you're talking about. Do everyone a solid and stop.

[jancivil]

having just stumbled on the thread - which looks like it has desintegrated
into the usual webwrangling, unless i misread - and i'm a lazy untutored
non-player type getting curious about developing a more intuitive under-
standing of where i can go, and with what results, with scales and modes.
so i started looking at it, with a view to reducing it to 'templates' that
i could understand more easily.

i'm kinda surprised there aren't more simple software tools, or even
utility plugins devoted to educating us.

If you're getting curious, you should be advised that your brain has more computing power by orders of magnitude than any computer. I think 'intuition' and relying on a transform function to do the actual process don't much agree.

If you require a crutch before you stand on your own two feet, your chances of walking are not real good.

[jancivil]

Do you really think that he's going to think much about it in either case? Or, do you think that the right and left hands might automatically go to the same place on his 49 key fruity loops controller out of habit? Or, that he's going to just paint in a "melody" and then copy parts of it down an octave or two for the bass, and then thin it out a bit? What's the probability that he's going to add some chord that doesn't work? It's not hard to come up with a prior on that one, amiright? What do you think that he's going to do if he wants it in a different, oh excuse me, key? Which here means only that the bass note really hits that sub hard. He's going to use his computer to transpose the thing. Done and done.

All that I'm arguing is that people coming from that point of view find that simplistic approach useful. I know people like that, I doubt that you do. Useful here has a simple meaning, it means that they create music that they're happy with.

I have no idea what this unfortunate scenario has to do with answering a question about what modes are for, unless you are telling me there is no help for the terminally incurious. If that's it, you may be right.

How do you feature I started out? Cluelessly, bashing about on a toy organ and later a cheap guitar, by ear. I had read music for Bb trumpet which didn't much apply.
But yes, I was after something more than someone that would think that is what you do to make music. It seems like a lot of energy spent in saying leave these people be. Be advised that my remarks are not restricted to conveying something to that guy. I realize that you believe I have nothing to offer that guy. Not my problem.

[fmr]

i'm kinda surprised there aren't more simple software tools, or even
utility plugins devoted to educating us. you get 'transform' functions
in some DAWs but that restricts you to that DAW, whereas loading the
plugin could happen anywhere, even in savihost.

I am surprised there isn't a software that composes everything for you, and you could just send it over to a publisher and then just collect the check?

Give me a break. We are talking about things that take time to learrn, and are as deep as any other science subject. People can try to simplify, but what they will manage is reduce things to a meaningless amalgama, where nothing fits anymore, Sure, in a trial and error basis, someone may come up with something really interesting sometimes, but that will not have any sequence, because, since it came out not as a consequence work of some rationalized thinkinf, but rather out of pure luck, it will no likely to happen twice.

What is the problem of trying to study seriously the subject, if it ireally interests you? What happened to you people? What made you think these things are so easy that some guy may program an algorythm and that's it? Or that a small article full of innacurate and plainly wrong assertions would be enough for you to understand. Would you trust a doctor if he told you he learned his skills by reading a couple of Internet pages? Or a lawyer, for that matter?

There was a guy that came up with a software that he pretended could "emulate" Mozart style. Sure, it has some of the "signature characteristics" of Mozart style, but it lacked the small things that made the best works from Mozart really great works. Afyer a while, we start to notice that everything that came out was more or less the same thing. And we are talking about Mozart. For some reason, he didn't proceed with other composers and styles.