Modal Harmony vid series

[Gamma-UT]

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 that. 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.

The best your source can do is that there was controversy. This is somewhat at odds with your repeated declaration that there is no such thing as an Ionian mode and which you used to browbeat another poster in this thread in true Music Theory Subforum Style.

Furthermore, Zarlino based his work on Glarean - he just renamed and reordered the modes – personally, I'm not aware of anyone who disputes that. So, it's not as if putting the emphasis on Zarlino makes those troublesome modes go away.

From your source: "The history of polyphonic modality spans the five centuries from the end of the thirteenth century to well into the eighteenth. It may be divided into four stages, separated by Tinctoria's Liber de nature et proprietare tonorum (1476), Glarean's Dodecachordon (1547), and the beginning of the decline of compositional interest in the modes around 1620. The stages could be characterised as "uncertain beginnings", "general acceptance", "controversy", and "gradual disappearance"."

Furthermore, unless your argument is that zethus909 should be careful if he travels back in time to the 16th Century to practice music, the argument about who, at or shortly after the publication of the Dodecachordon, understood themselves to be composing in Ionian or Aeolian mode is irrelevant. This whole discussion began with your bald assertion that "There wasn't ever a Ionian mode, but even if it existed (outside of treaties), the fact that is had the same intervals of C Major is just a coincidence."

For that to be true, you have to work on the basis that the Dodecachordon was never published. We are not in that parallel universe.

[Gamma-UT]

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

As far as I can see scanning back through the thread, it came through a wilful misreading of another poster's comments. But seeing as some posters here believe Ionian does not exist, what does one call a mode derived from that scale? Personally, I'm happy to call it "Charlie" or "Colette" if "mode built on C major" is off limits. But I'm somewhat less bothered about trying to put stuff in boxes.

[fmr]

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 that. 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.

The best your source can do is that there was controversy. This is somewhat at odds with your repeated declaration that there is no such thing as an Ionian mode and which you used to browbeat another poster in this thread in true Music Theory Subforum Style.

Furthermore, Zarlino based his work on Glarean - he just renamed and reordered the modes – personally, I'm not aware of anyone who disputes that. So, it's not as if putting the emphasis on Zarlino makes those troublesome modes go away.

From your source: "The history of polyphonic modality spans the five centuries from the end of the thirteenth century to well into the eighteenth. It may be divided into four stages, separated by Tinctoria's Liber de nature et proprietare tonorum (1476), Glarean's Dodecachordon (1547), and the beginning of the decline of compositional interest in the modes around 1620. The stages could be characterised as "uncertain beginnings", "general acceptance", "controversy", and "gradual disappearance"."

Furthermore, unless your argument is that zethus909 should be careful if he travels back in time to the 16th Century to practice music, the argument about who, at or shortly after the publication of the Dodecachordon, understood themselves to be composing in Ionian or Aeolian mode is irrelevant. This whole discussion began with your bald assertion that "There wasn't ever a Ionian mode, but even if it existed (outside of treaties), the fact that is had the same intervals of C Major is just a coincidence."

For that to be true, you have to work on the basis that the Dodecachordon was never published. We are not in that parallel universe.

Point is I, personally, based on what I study and what I know, do not agree with the writings of Glarean and Zarlino, and like is pointed by my source (I have others, but this way beyond the scope of this thread, IMO) even contemporaries have either a hard time understanding what he wrote or didn't accept that at all. Besides, at the time, all of this was already irrelevant, since when Zarlino came out with this theory (which may have been based in Glarean, although he never acknowldge that) the polyphony was already in his last stage "gradual disappearance". Therefore, it was irrelevant, and therefore, musicians never thought in terms of "Ionian" (which, I repeat again, never existed outside of the theory book) but rather in terms of what was being taught to them since centuries - the modal system with eight modes.

Whether you acknowledge that or not, is no concern to me. If you choose to accept a rather improbable possibility that suddenly everybody started to call Ionian to what they once called Lydian, it's up to you.

If you choose to misuse that same concept applied to something (nowadays) that is firmly tonal, and therefore has nothing to do with that (I think that it is also established that Major/minor and tonality came from the "seconda pratica" which happened to having started by someone who happened to not subscribe Zarlino ideas and even attacking them) and saying that Major comes from Ionian (which you didn't quote any realiable source for yet) be my guest. It's a free world

[JumpingJackFlash]

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.

Agreed, and I think that is the pertinent issue here.
The Ionian mode and the major scale are not the same, regardless of the fact that they happen to consist of the same notes. On a broader level, modality and tonality are very different systems.

[Gamma-UT]

Point is I, personally, based on what I study and what I know, do not agree with the writings of Glarean and Zarlino, and like is pointed by my source (I have others, but this way beyond the scope of this thread, IMO) even contemporaries have either a hard time understanding what he wrote or didn't accept that at all.

This is not at issue. It's clear who you disagree with.

Whether you acknowledge that or not, is no concern to me. If you choose to accept a rather improbable possibility that suddenly everybody started to call Ionian to what they once called Lydian, it's up to you.

As that isn't my argument, that isn't an issue. Unfortunately for you, it only needs to demonstrated that some did for your assertion that Ionian has never existed to be proven false. As I think we can assume Glarean and Zarlino, at the very least, had musical ability, I'm afraid you are on shaky ground.

If you choose to misuse that same concept applied to something (nowadays) that is firmly tonal, and therefore has nothing to do with that (I think that it is also established that Major/minor and tonality came from the "seconda pratica" which happened to having started by someone who happened to not subscribe Zarlino ideas and even attacking them) and saying that Major comes from Ionian (which you didn't quote any realiable source for yet) be my guest. We live in free countries

A mode is not tonal. I have been using the term Ionian in relation to modal use. I also did not say that Major (as used tonally) is necessarily derived from Ionian, only that the notes in the two scales are not the product of coincidence. However, when one considers the importance of the leading tone...

[fmr]

Whether you acknowledge that or not, is no concern to me. If you choose to accept a rather improbable possibility that suddenly everybody started to call Ionian to what they once called Lydian, it's up to you.

As that isn't my argument, that isn't an issue. Unfortunately for you, it only needs to demonstrated that some did for your assertion that Ionian has never existed to be proven false. As I think we can assume Glarean and Zarlino, at the very least, had musical ability, I'm afraid you are on shaky ground.

I have no problem at all being on that "shaky" ground. I have some good musicians with me even, as I already pointed, and even several works written on the subject. OTOH, you only have a treaty from Zarlino, and another (which his one is supposedly based on) from Glarean. You consider that a solid ground? Or are Glarean and Zarlino the only music authorities you accept?

A mode is not tonal. I have been using the term Ionian in relation to modal use. I also did not say that Major (as used tonally) is necessarily derived from Ionian, only that the notes in the two scales are not the product of coincidence. However, when one considers the importance of the leading tone...

Leading tone that was (in practice) present in ANY mode in the 15th and 16th century. So?

[JumpingJackFlash]

I would propose the Ionian mode did exist (after Glarean), but its primary use was academic, in pedagogy. A good example would be Fux's famous Gradus ad Parnassum (Fux recognised 6 modes, discounting the authentic/plagal distinction).

The extent to which the Ionian mode existed in the minds of real-world practical musicians is debatable. As time went on and the next generation emerged having been schooled in Ionian and Aeolian modes, some would no doubt have recognised them, except for the fact that by that time, the influence of the old modal system was diminishing. I.e. Very few real-world practical musicians would still have thought in modal terms at all. - That's another problem, the Ionian/Aeolian distinction developed in tandem with the emerging major/minor system, and separating one from the other isn't always easy.

As one example, Scipione Cerreto devoted an entire chapter of his 1601 treatise to rejecting Glarean's new modes. He described the Ionian/Aeolian modes as commixed modes, derived from the others, on account of their species of fourths and fifths being the same as in other modes.

Others who clung to the 8 mode system (rejecting Ionian/Aeolian) include: Antonio Fernandez (1626), Fabricio Tettamanzi (1686), Carlos de Jesus Maria (1741), and Frangois de la Feillee (1748).

Those theorists who did accept the 12-mode system often did so in addition to the older 8-mode system, not instead of. Examples include Pierre Maillart (1610), Antoine Parran (1636) and Pierre-Benoit de Jumilhac (1673).

[jancivil]

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

As far as I can see scanning back through the thread, it came through a wilful misreading of another poster's comments.

Well, 'zethus' had C major as the mother of all modes. And "Ionian", accordingly, is the basis for the rest; and what-not. (I'm fairly certain I have not mischaracterized the essence of that argument.)

(BTW, if that is an answer to Where did we wind up... actually I meant to say, in the affirmative, "Where we did wind up is...")

<major scale> is a property of tonal music, in the major/minor paradigm, strictly speaking, yes?

I am curious as to "The extent to which the Ionian mode existed in the minds of real-world practical musicians is debatable." Or Aeolian, per JJF's last post that is.

[MadBrain]

The sources I can find seem to be saying that:

- D Dorian mode turned into D minor (with the mobile B/Bb note essentially becoming always Bb, the musica ficta hexachord on A turning into the B C# leading-note alterations, and the other "musica ficta" hexachords turning into secondary dominant chords and borrowed chords).
- E phrygian fell out of use
- F lydian turned into F major (mobile B/Bb turning into always Bb, other musica ficta turning into secondary dominant chords and borrowed chords)
- G mixolydian seems to have turned into G major (with B/Bb turning into always B, and musica ficta that turned F into F# becoming generalized)
- There were versions of modes transposed up a 4th (and, later, also up a 5th). The 4th-transposed modes made the variable degree E/Eb and used Bb, giving G Dorian, A phrygian, Bb lydian and C mixolydian. With the various modes merging into minor and major, in theory this would have turned into G minor, (fell out of use), Bb major and C major.

[JumpingJackFlash]

- E phrygian fell out of use

This is the interesting one. Beginning with a semitone, not having a consonant dominant and no possibility of a leading note, the Phrygian mode was unique. Theorists have generally linked it with the Aeolian mode (or the minor key) to explain it - indeed, after Glarean, some works previously classed as "Phrygian" were re-classed as "Aeolian", and later analysts had the unfortunate tendency to analyse Phrygian works as being in A minor ending on the dominant. But this does the mode a disservice.

As the other modes dissolved into major and minor (as you correctly summarise), Phrygian remained and endured a lot longer, but it required (and requires) a different mindset in order to appreciate.

[zethus909]

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.

Agreed, and I think that is the pertinent issue here.
The Ionian mode and the major scale are not the same, regardless of the fact that they happen to consist of the same notes. On a broader level, modality and tonality are very different systems.

no they aren't the same---in an abstract sense. that's what allows for them to be different---the fact that they are both abstractions! you can have 1million different abstractions that all describe a single physical thing.

but they are all describing the same "thing", a thing is something REAL. things like the bodies we use and our skin that ages over time are real. they don't depend on an abstraction like carbon dating system to age--they just age. sound and music are real things and not dependent on any human made system of abstractions . the abstraction can only describe, it cannot BE. to be is to exist, without mind, without thought

[JumpingJackFlash]

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.

Agreed, and I think that is the pertinent issue here.
The Ionian mode and the major scale are not the same, regardless of the fact that they happen to consist of the same notes. On a broader level, modality and tonality are very different systems.

no they aren't the same---in an abstract sense. that's what allows for them to be different---the fact that they are both abstractions! you can have 1million different abstractions that all describe a single physical thing.

but they are all describing the same "thing", a thing is something REAL. things like the bodies we use and our skin that ages over time are real. they don't depend on an abstraction like carbon dating system to age--they just age. sound and music are real things and not dependent on any human made system of abstractions . the abstraction can only describe, it cannot BE. to be is to exist, without mind, without thought

Music is not a natural thing like light; it is consciously made by intelligent beings. And, with the exception of certain post-tonal movements that need not concern us here, is not random. It tends to conform to certain systems, in the case of tonality, that system tends to come first.

In other words, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that (for example) Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is in A major. That cannot really be disputed anymore than the fact that, say, Great Expectations was written in English.

"A major" here is not just an arbitrary label. It has meaning. It informs us of certain tendencies and characteristics inherent to the music. To use your terms, it is REAL.

Other labels would not only be inaccurate, they would have other properties and meanings.

[zethus909]

again, on the surface i would like to agree with you. it's a logical point you are making, and it's rational. but what you are basing all of it on is flawed:

Music is not a natural thing like light; it is consciously made by intelligent beings.

you are implying that humans "create" the music, as though it doesn't exist, until an intelligent human plays "music" and what is considered music, is it, when two or more tones are played in relation to eachother in some sort of rhythmic way? sure, thats a fine definition, and a crude one, but it's still false.

the "music" exists, whether a human plays it or not. the music, is part of nature, and Man is an animal. The geometry of music exists whether there is a human race or not. The universe exists whether we exist or not. Man is a product of nature, Man exists BECAUSE of nature, not IN SPITE of nature. The same geometry that creates the conditions necessary for there to be Man, is the same geometry that Man manipulates to create sonic patterns, just like birds do and dolphins do.

"Music" is a residual tool of evolution. It is functional. It is not an "invention". It isn't an "invention" created by organisms that have evolved. The Music is always there.

It's the reality that humans have opposable thumbs and voiceboxes and brains big enough....that allows for this illusion that "we create the music". we dont create it, it's always there, the potential is always there. whether that potential is realized or not is what matters. and it DOESNT matter if it exists or not. because its potential exists.

answer this: are ants intelligent? are birds?

how does this dove's call make you feel. safe? in danger? listen to the intervals, then see how it makes you feel. we are animals.

[JumpingJackFlash]

What is art? - Is a sunset art by itself?
Music is an art.

[jancivil]

Ionian mode and Major scale are not the same thing because that thing is essential. A piece of music, raga where it adheres to Bilaval Thaat, or Zappa Watermelon in Easter Hay, which works modally is A DIFFERENT OBJECT than a piece that works in major.

It's laughable how inept you are here, "zethus". These two things do not reduce to a mere description of the set 0 2 4 5 7 9 11. I could show you music to illustrate the difference but you'll insist on some words. This is entirely contradictory. You've contradicted your own lingo, gone back, and turned around yet again. It's too much a clusterfuck to even sort out.

You're tripping all over yourself trying to seem like you have this superior understanding. You're quite incompetent. Dunning-Kruger Effect doesn't seem to go far enough to describe your arrogance and top-down, absolutely mistaken sense of how you're doing. You're entirely full of shit. I wish JJF had not engaged you in a quote, I would prefer never to see this level of f**ked-up. It's painful.