Modal Harmony vid series

[fmr]

Heinrich Glarean proposed the Ionian and Aeolian modes together with two other 'hypo' modes in his Dodecahordon expansion of the eight-mode system that started with Boethius. Glarean added them to address the fact that church music had already adopted their structures as they became more complex and moved further than Guido of Arezzo's hexachords.

The Ionian was, in effect, an altered version of the Myxolydian – substituting a B for the Bb that would have appeared in Guido's ''natural" (C-A) hexachord had it extended past A (La). In Guido's system there is no difference, because there is no seventh, and therefore no need for two almost identical modes. By Glarean and Zarlino's time, things had changed.

So, no, the idea that the Ionian mode never existed is false, as is the idea that Ionian intervals have nothing to do with the modern C Major scale.

By the time Glareanus "proposed" the Ionian (and other) modes, the modal system was already almost dissolved into tonal system.

Guido d'Arezzo method, based on the hexachord, was used as a mnemonic to help "modulate" from a mode to another (and there were three hexachords, not two - the natural, that goes from C to A - without B; the Durum that goes from G to E, with B quadrum; and ther Mole that goes from F to D, with the B mole). So, yess, Guido used the B also - but don't forget that in Guido method, the hexachords represented only intervals, not absolute pitches. When he signaled singers to change from the natural hexachord to the mole hexachord, he wasn't saying them to change pitches, but just interval intonations. BTW - Even now, in hispanic countries, the signal that lowers the notes a half-step is called "bemol", and the signal that raises a flat note half step is called "bequadro".

But it wasn't the only thing that helped the changing, and the transition from pure modality into tonality. As you pointed, the "musica ficta" practice already altered the modes that were being used (and were kept being used, in spite of Glareanus treaty) basically closing the gaps between modes, to the point that some of them become almost identical. Less than 100 years later, music was already tonal.

So, in fact, Glareanus "proposition" wasn't needed, because people used the modes in existance well aware of what they were and of what alterations were being introduced. But if you insist, when exactly would you say that this "Ionian" mode was used? Can you point any piece where it was used, and being firmly established?

Besides, a mode, whatever it is, has nothing to do with C Major (which is, itself, a mode, but also part of an entire new system of making music). So, again, the detail that thay share the same intervals is meaningless.

[Gamma-UT]

So, in fact, Glareanus "proposition" wasn't needed, because people used the modes in existance well aware of what they were and of what alterations were being introduced. But if you insist, when exactly would you say that this "Ionian" mode was used? Can you point any piece where it was used, and being firmly established?

Palestrina used Ionian in native and transposed form - try Ave Regina coelorum per Knud Jeppesen's book. (Though I don't doubt you will attempt to argue that it's Lydian with a transformation)

Besides, a mode, whatever it is, has nothing to do with C Major (which is, itself, a mode, but also part of an entire new system of making music). So, again, the detail that thay share the same intervals is meaningless.

Classic motte and bailey argumentation: "C Major's a mode but it's more than that so anyone saying C Major is a mode is wrong." And it's irrelevant unless you want to argue that folk music somehow had zero influence on formal music but its idioms gradually made their way in.

To quote Jeppesen in his book on Palestrina:

"The entire history of [western] music could justifiably be written as the History of the Leading Tone Step: how this effect was found originally in certain Gregorian modes; how in the beginning it was carefully avoided until musicians learned to appreciate it and introduced it in modes to which it was foreign; and how, with the transition to polyphony, it then took an established form in the dominant-tonic cadence and finally led to the whole Wagnerian and post-Wagnerian chromaticism."

Your unnecessary and unhelpful hair-splitting over whether the Ionian existed prior to Glarean giving it a name (other than modus lascivus or the "mode that shall not be named because it's used to encourage fornication") is just one example of the tedious, Gradgrindian school of music theory that demands everything gets put into a little box instead of actually taking into account the context of musical decisions.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Palestrina used Ionian in native and transposed form - try Ave Regina coelorum per Knud Jeppesen's book. (Though I don't doubt you will attempt to argue that it's Lydian with a transformation)

In actual fact, as I have said before, the Lydian mode was commonly used with the Bb - almost always so in practice. That is how such music was perceived and that is the origin of the major key.

The intervals of the major scale are also (apparently) identical to Bilaval That, Mela Shankarabharanam, Raga Atana, Ghana Heptatonic and a whole load of other scales. Are they the same? Of course not. Does it make sense to say that Palestrina composed using Raga Atana? Of course not.

[fmr]

Palestrina used Ionian in native and transposed form - try Ave Regina coelorum per Knud Jeppesen's book. (Though I don't doubt you will attempt to argue that it's Lydian with a transformation)

You answered your own question, so I presume it was a rhetorical one. You can pretend to see "ionian" where anyone serious about this will see Lydian. From them all, you would pick Palestrina, someone known for his profound respect for the canons, as a "revolutionary"? Really?

Besides, a mode, whatever it is, has nothing to do with C Major (which is, itself, a mode, but also part of an entire new system of making music). So, again, the detail that thay share the same intervals is meaningless.

Classic motte and bailey argumentation: "C Major's a mode but it's more than that so anyone saying C Major is a mode is wrong." And it's irrelevant unless you want to argue that folk music somehow had zero influence on formal music but its idioms gradually made their way in.

I would not say "C Major" but only "Major". But yes, I pretty much subscribe what you put inside commas above. What is it that you don't agree there?

And I fail to see what folk music (WHICH folk music, BTW?) has to do with this subject. Care to elaborate? I'm aware there are modal folk tunes that came up to our days, but are saying there are some in Ionian? And that those are Ionian, and not major tunes?

[Gamma-UT]

Palestrina used Ionian in native and transposed form - try Ave Regina coelorum per Knud Jeppesen's book. (Though I don't doubt you will attempt to argue that it's Lydian with a transformation)

He couldn't possibly have use the "Ionian mode" anymore than he used the major key. Neither of them existed at the time.

I think before making such sweeping claims you might want to check some dates. If your argument is that Glarean's work did not influence Palestrina directly, I'd be prepared to accept that. We have no way of knowing either way. But the idea that, in the case of Ionian, "it did not exist" is on far shakier ground.

The Dodecachordon was published in 1547. At that point, Palestrina was just 22 years old. The work I cited I believe was composed in 1575.

Although he was central to the church's cleanup campaign on chant, Palestrina was certainly not a stranger to folk modes. He composed a bunch of madrigals and a number of his own motets are "parodic" in that they are manipulated from other tunes in common use at the time.

[Gamma-UT]

And I fail to see what folk music (WHICH folk music, BTW?) has to do with this subject. Care to elaborate? I'm aware there are modal folk tunes that came up to our days, but are saying there are some in Ionian? And that those are Ionian, and not major tunes?

I see your problem. And it's the same one I identified above and the one that spawned this trainwreck of a thread – the attempt to place church-derived music on a pedestal and ignore the influence of folk styles. You've got this idea that formal music evolved in a vacuum.

And now you're going around in circles. Is your argument that folk tunes are in major? A term that actually crops up after Ionian chronologically and in relation to tonal rather than modal music? If so, is a sea shanty like Drunken Sailor not actually Dorian after all?

[beltrom]

I think before making such sweeping claims you might want to check some dates. If your argument is that Glarean's work did not influence Palestrina directly, I'd be prepared to accept that. We have no way of knowing either way. But the idea that, in the case of Ionian, "it did not exist" is on far shakier ground.

It's interesting that according to wikipedia: "Glarean went so far as to say that the Ionian mode was the one most frequently used by composers in his day."

No idea if that is a correct interpretation or not.

[fmr]

And I fail to see what folk music (WHICH folk music, BTW?) has to do with this subject. Care to elaborate? I'm aware there are modal folk tunes that came up to our days, but are saying there are some in Ionian? And that those are Ionian, and not major tunes?

I see your problem. And it's the same one I identified above and the one that spawned this trainwreck of a thread – the attempt to place church-derived music on a pedestal and ignore the influence of folk styles. You've got this idea that formal music evolved in a vacuum.

And now you're going around in circles. Is your argument that folk tunes are in major? A term that actually crops up after Ionian chronologically and in relation to tonal rather than modal music? If so, is a sea shanty like Drunken Sailor not actually Dorian after all?

First: I never put church music, or classical music, or any other kind of music in a "pedestal". I just asked WHICH folk music, because each country has it's own folk traditions, and they vary a lot. I see that you are in UK. I'm sure you are not pretending UK folk traditions have influenced Palestrina

Besides, folk music was also influenced by church music. The influences worked both ways, not just in a single way. And your example of Drunken Sailor (which is in the mode of D, a mode that was never in duspute here) was called to prove what, exactly? That there are modal folk songs? Who said there weren't?

Second: I maintain there wasn't ever ANY Ionian thing in music, outside of Glareanus treaty. Some people tend to exaggerate the influence of Glareanus in music, don't know why. And you seem to think that modes existed as they were, in pure state until 1600, and then, suddenly, composers put them aside and started to compose in Major/minor. It wasn't that way. There were centuries where things were no longer purely modal (NO LONGER MODAL "strictu sensu") but not yet tonal, in the way we know tonal music as per the opera and the italian composers of the second half of 1500s and during 1600s. So, let that rubbish talk about Ionian go - modes were what they were since circa 500, but music itself and music composition evolved continuously, in a non stop movement. Pretending that at a certain time, composers "created" new modes just because they were performing some occuring alterations to the existing modes (not even writing them - mainly just performing), is absurd.

[Gamma-UT]

It's interesting that according to wikipedia: "Glarean went so far as to say that the Ionian mode was the one most frequently used by composers in his day."

No idea if that is a correct interpretation or not.

Personally, I don't think it was an unreasonable claim by Glarean. Let's face it, whatever the history, the two scales identified by Glarean for his "new modes" are by far the most commonly employed in western music without question. These were modes that, at the time, dare not speak their name because there was a long period of suppression of what formal composers regarded as vulgar music - once that suppression ended, fashion pushed these upstart modes to the fore.

[fmr]

It's interesting that according to wikipedia: "Glarean went so far as to say that the Ionian mode was the one most frequently used by composers in his day."

No idea if that is a correct interpretation or not.

Personally, I don't think it was an unreasonable claim by Glarean. Let's face it, whatever the history, the two scales identified by Glarean for his "new modes" are by far the most commonly employed in western music without question. These were modes that, at the time, dare not speak their name because there was a long period of suppression of what formal composers regarded as vulgar music - once that suppression ended, fashion pushed these upstart modes to the fore.

Because he was erroneously seeing the alterations performed in the third and fourth modes (again, in a period where modal music was basically already ending, leaving place to tonality, and the major/minor) as "his" new mode. In reality, it wasn't new. It was the same old thing with occuring alterations, mainly in cadences. And that "long period of oppresion" is another unreasonable argument. You first claim that Palestrina composed in Ionian (being him the music leader of the counter-reform of the catholic church). Then you claim that composers were working in the "new" mode because "suppression period ended". You have to make up your mind. What period exactly are you talking regarding the "suppression"? And what's exactly that was "suppressed"?

[JumpingJackFlash]

It's interesting that according to wikipedia: "Glarean went so far as to say that the Ionian mode was the one most frequently used by composers in his day."

Glarean wrote that "even now we have commonly only three modes in frequent use" (essentially but simplistically referring to major, minor and Phrygian).

But this is the problem in any discussion like this. There was enormous disagreement throughout this era about the number of modes and their order. Some accepted as few as 6 (ignoring authentic/plagal distinctions), while some accepted as many as 14 (including the two ‘spurious modes’, Hyperaeolian and Hyperphrygian). Modality in relation to polyphony is especially problematic.

And this is even before the rise of tonality which of course happened gradually, and not everywhere at the same time. And it happened in practice before it was written about in theory. Well into the eighteenth century, you have some who continue to staunchly promote the modes, while others reject and dismiss them entirely (in favour of tonality). There were several rather heated arguments on the matter.

Let's face it, whatever the history, the two scales identified by Glarean for his "new modes" are by far the most commonly employed in western music without question. These were modes that, at the time, dare not speak their name because there was a long period of suppression of what formal composers regarded as vulgar music - once that suppression ended, fashion pushed these upstart modes to the fore.

It's not that they "dare not speak their name", it's just they would have normally been thought of as Lydian and Dorian.

[Gamma-UT]

It's funny how I'm the one citing sources and the responses remain "yeah but no but yeah but this is how it was".

Maybe someone wants to point to the textbook in current use that says "Glarean was clearly wrong" that they are working to in their heads. Because, it seems a bit strange that many music theory texts do contain the terms Ionian and Aeolian. Are they all wrong? Is there some master text hidden away that contains the awful truth of music theory that only some internet denizens have access to?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Maybe someone wants to point to the textbook in current use that says "Glarean was clearly wrong" that they are working to in their heads. Because, it seems a bit strange that many music theory texts do contain the terms Ionian and Aeolian. Are they all wrong? Is there some master text hidden away that contains the awful truth of music theory that only some internet denizens have access to?

Of course modern textbooks contain the terms Ionian and Aeolian; they exist now, I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.

My point is more about historical authenticity and avoiding anachronism. It is irresponsible to ascribe our modern system(s) of pitch organisation onto musicians of the past who would not have thought in those terms.

I can supply plenty of sources who disagree with Glarean's concepts if you want or who advocate alternative systems. As I said, the matter was hotly debated for many years (it's not like once Glarean introduced his new modes, everyone suddenly fell into line and adopted the new system overnight!). The fact that major and minor stem from Lydian and Dorian is also well covered in the literature.

[fmr]

It's funny how I'm the one citing sources and the responses remain "yeah but no but yeah but this is how it was".

Maybe someone wants to point to the textbook in current use that says "Glarean was clearly wrong" that they are working to in their heads. Because, it seems a bit strange that many music theory texts do contain the terms Ionian and Aeolian. Are they all wrong? Is there some master text hidden away that contains the awful truth of music theory that only some internet denizens have access to?

You can read the pages available on the Internet here: https://books.google.pt/books?id=yfFTAQ ... es&f=false
about the polemic of the introduction of the twelve modes by Zarlino, and how many composers (and even disciples, like Vincenzo Galilei) opposed to his theories. And we are talking about Zarlino, which has far more influence than the unknown (at the time) Glarean. Even the fourth mode was questioned, since, at the time, and because of the polyphonic practice and the "musica ficta") composers were finding it more and more the same to the third mode.

At a certain point, the author aknowldeges that, being teached since tender ages in the eight/six mode system, musicians will hardly recognize twelve modes, and will look at the compositions as written in one fo the old modes. Besides Vincenzo Galilei was already advocating a new music (what would become the "seconda pratica" of Monteverdi, and the basis for the appearance of the opera), so Zarlino theories were far more important for the content regarding harmony (namely the major/minor triads) than for the modes, where they were clearly not being taken in consideration by the majority.

[jancivil]

Wow.

I would like to place this back on track by agreeing with Fernando in that <major> is not modal. Regardless of the historical validity of the term Ionian.
I think we all agree that *Bilaval Thaat was not a factor for Palestrina et al.

IE: the objection to {the strawman} "you put Church Modes on a pedestal to avoid *the influence of folk music" is musicology rather than music theory anybody can use.

I had a Music History course where the professor was deep into this Church Music and we hadn't got to this juncture where there was any consensus (so it seems) on de facto Ionian after two trimesters. (later I researched "Modal Counterpoint" to clarify terms for myself, but I'm still vague, but the transformation to major/minor seemed imminent at the time of this text, late 15th c.) I was beyond bored, this was Honors curriculum which means that what the regulation student had two years for we had but the one, so it looked bleak. I was kicked out of it early in trimester 3 for serial tardiness. 8 am for all this music which made me want to go back to bed, I'm sorry.

Where we did wind up with 'major scale' is not modal music. Let's establish at least this as a working basis.