Modal Harmony vid series

[JumpingJackFlash]

Well, right away (all I need is "harmonized by JS Bach" to know 'not modal')

Well... This is probably a bit of an over-simlification.
Obviously by this time, tonality had established itself, but modality persisted in Germany a lot longer than it did elsewhere in Europe. Bach dealt with a lot of modal melodies, and there are certainly some of his settings which bring out this modal character.

It's not strictly "modal" in the same sense as the original melody is, but some Bach's settings are better to explain from a modal standpoint than a tonal one.

I'd have to analyze the first one in C. ...

Interesting. I'll comment on this later.

I know that in theory the first example has a finalis on E, but my ear (given a tuning fork) is saying 'Tonic on A' and sees E as a dominant subordinate to A (it even has a Esus4-E suspension) and is hearing all sorts of A-minor harmony things like temporary modulations to the relative major (C). If you ignore the finalis on E, there's little difference between this and a tonal song in A minor to me.

Interesting.

Yeah, looking further at the score it must be A minor. I didn't hear that or see it in the first 8 bars (I wasn't digging the youtube), it keeps dodging. But the E chords tend to be dominant. IF he had in mind some theory of "E Final", it's nonetheless a half cadence in A minor as far as I care. There just is no feeling of E as tonic.

Are you talking about the first example?

to me, as a modern person.).

Absolutely. And this is the problem with looking at earlier music like this. - To our ears, the "tonal" aspects overshadow anything that might be considered "modal". Modern ears are very different from eighteenth-century ones though.

I think I wrote something earlier about Phrygian-mode pieces analysed as A minor by modern analysts; this has been fairly common. However, such an approach may be anachronistic and may not reflect how the music was interpreted at the time.

Looking at the first example, how often does an A minor chord occur in the first phrase of the melody?
How often does a G# resolve up to an A in this setting?
Do you think the answer to these questions is unusual for a piece "in A minor"?

After playing it (I wasn't around a keyboard) I agree with the A tonal center, which is why I retracted my post. There is definitely more of a modal character to the first setting though.

You shouldn't have retracted your post, I was actually in the middle of praising it when I went back and couldn't find it. You had some astute observations there.

[jancivil]

For anyone interested, I would like to offer some real-world musical examples here.
Specifically, two eighteenth-century chorale settings of the same melody by J.S. Bach. The melody was written by Hans Leo Hassler in 1601. It was a well-known melody in the Phrygian mode.

Before I say anything, what do you think about each of the two settings?
Are they modal or tonal? (Or something else?) Perhaps look at each phrase separately first (same questions).

Well, I'm finding more than one dissertation that's interested in exploring the definition of Bach's modal compositional practice. So far two which resort to Schenker analysis to parse tendencies. So I think I would confer your "each phrase separately" which appears to be where said analysis will come up with modal definitions vs tonal. I don't know what to do with that, in the first instance none of the E works for me as particularly static. The harmony keeps moving so my prejudice is totally 'not modal'. Additionally I wonder if the methodology here is employed to justify the whole "modal practices" going in, which is bad science.

I didn't have anything scholastic having to do with JS Bach and modal practice. I was "right next to" a musician who was studying formally and he related that Sheinfeld said "JS Bach hated Mixolydian", upshot is in favor of leading tone.

[JumpingJackFlash]

By the way, the second example was originally at the same pitch level as the first. The score I linked to is transposed.

For the first one, number 270 here has an important error in bar 10. The tenor originally cadenced on G-natural here. The G# was a later editorial addition which I believe was done to make it better conform to "tonal" expectations.

I'll post more tomorrow. Apologies if I'm sounding arrogant here, this happens to be my field

[stringtapper]

After playing it (I wasn't around a keyboard) I agree with the A tonal center, which is why I retracted my post. There is definitely more of a modal character to the first setting though.

You shouldn't have retracted your post, I was actually in the middle of praising it when I went back and couldn't find it. You had some astute observations there.

Yeah, I was trying to edit it to clarify some things and then lost it all in the copy paste process.

To reiterate some of the things I said, I think that the first setting definitely has a pervasive modal character to it. Even if our modern ears want to hear it in an A tonality, the clues to the E Phrygian origins are still intact. The stressing of the F–>E descending motion in the bass in measures 2, 7 and 15 seems like a very strong hint pointing towards E Phrygian.

The second setting has a much stronger sense of tonality in B minor I think. There are tonicizations of the relative major and the dominant of the relative major. But there are even some hints of the Phrygian mode, for example, in the tenor line in measure 7 where you get a C-natural->B descending motion, Ra-Do/b2-1 in B, which is the characteristic Phrygian interval.

Upon reflection I think the final cadences in both settings could be the biggest clue to it all. They are functionally identical even though the voicings and ornamentations are obviously different. In both examples the closing point of the text happens on iii —> I6, with the final measure containing a plagal motion prolonging the I chord: I6 —> iv —> I. The use of a plagal extension in a setting of a modal melody paired with such a heavy religious text is surely no coincidence, and the fact that both settings end on chords whose roots match the finalis of the Phrygian melody (E and F#) has to say something about how much influence the modal melody had when compared to, for instance, another setting just a few pages down from number 89 in the second document JJF linked, number 98, which ends with a relatively routine V-I on the relative major.

[jancivil]

There just is no feeling of E as tonic.

Are you talking about the first example?

Yes.

I think I wrote something earlier about Phrygian-mode pieces analysed as A minor by modern analysts; this has been fairly common. However, such an approach may be anachronistic and may not reflect how the music was interpreted at the time.

Looking at the first example, how often does an A minor chord occur in the first phrase of the melody?
How often does a G# resolve up to an A in this setting?
Do you think the answer to these questions is unusual for a piece "in A minor"?

Not really. I see what you're implying. I'm not exactly immersed in tonal music. This, the frequency of occurrence, is the approach plugging the score into Schenker takes, as far as I can tell. "it defines those voice-leading progressions which are strongly tonal and highlights those which are not" - Lori Burns' thesis. She was interested in just how modal are the Chorales, really... It seems like this approach was trending as they say in the 90s.

Rather than adopting an a priori idea of modality, I define Bach’s modal compositional practice by the musical behaviour that the chorale preludes exhibit as revealed in analysis and through the Schenkerian perspective. To this end...
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3296/

Well, I can't have 18th century ears or perspective. I hear major/minor.

[MadBrain]

I think that E phrygian songs sounding like A minor songs that start and end on E wasn't just a Bach thing:

Missa Mi-mi Kyrie (Johannes Ockeghem, c. ~1420-1497)
Youtube: http://tinyurl.com/jgxohmp sheet music: http://storage.gmth.de/zgmth/images/1054

Mille Regretz (attributed to Josquin Des Prez, c. ~1452-1521)
Youtube:


In me transerunt (Orlande de Lassus, c. ~1532-1594)
Youtube: http://tinyurl.com/zpm9dco sheet music: http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/f/ff/L ... ierunt.pdf

[jancivil]

Quite a lot of the Des Prez seems centered on E to me. NB: doesn't seem like the accidentals were sung at all.

[jancivil]

After playing it (I wasn't around a keyboard) I agree with the A tonal center, which is why I retracted my post. There is definitely more of a modal character to the first setting though.

You shouldn't have retracted your post, I was actually in the middle of praising it when I went back and couldn't find it. You had some astute observations there.

Upon reflection I think the final cadences in both settings could be the biggest clue to it all. They are functionally identical [...] In both examples the closing point of the text happens on iii —> I6, with the final measure containing a plagal motion prolonging the I chord: I6 —> iv —> I. The use of a plagal extension in a setting of a modal melody paired with such a heavy religious text is surely no coincidence, and the fact that both settings end on chords whose roots match the finalis of the Phrygian melody (E and F#) has to say something about how much influence the modal melody had...

I understand enough to recognize Bach's intent there but when we take it to the point of Roman numbers I don't buy this, I may just be a modern schmuck but it sounds like i - V. "Modal" is apparently an academic matter here. I don't mean that in the pejorative sense. It just seems like the verbal argument is not borne out in sound. This is probably where my music history class was going when I got kicked out.

[MadBrain]

Quite a lot of the Des Prez seems centered on E to me. NB: doesn't seem like the accidentals were sung at all.

The part shown in the video is probably different from the one used by the singers then, with different musica ficta filled in by the editor (it would be really nice if more editions put the musica ficta above the notes or in brackets so that we could see which accidentals were written and which ones are educated guesses).

Saying that a song is in the E phrygian mode kinda forces us to define a lot of stuff:

What does being 'in E' mean?
- Does it need to finish on E? (finalis)
- Does it need to have a tonic on E?
- Does it need other elements like a dominant chord or melodic resolution leading to E?
- Does it need a drone or vamp to play this E a lot?

E phrygian means that it uses the notes E F G A B C D but:
- Do they have to be in the key signature?
- What if F# appears? What if it appears a lot?
- What if other borrowed harmony alterations like G# and C# and Bb appear?
- What if it has lots of resolutions towards other notes and harmonies?
- Do these notes only really matter when the chord progression is on the 'home' degree?
- Do equivalents like the Kurd Maqam count or does it have to have evolved out of the Gregorian mode?

What does 'in a mode' mean?
- Does it exclude tonal chord progressions and resolutions?
- Does it require that the composer thought it was 'in a mode'?
- Are harmonic textures inherently less modal?
- Are all polyphonic textures inherently less modal?
- Does it need to be in the historical European modal period or directly inspired by it?
- Does it need to be used for the whole song or is it meaningful to use it for as short as a single chord?

I'd surmise that different people care about very different subsets of these requirements, which is why there's so much disagreement. Though some styles basically fill most or all of them (like Indian music) so it's hard to argue about those... The contentious area is more like grey zones with lots of overlap with tonality like Renaissance music or whatever turns up in metal and techno songs.

[Gamma-UT]

I focused mainly on the points of emphasis in the piece: there are repeated rhythmic motifs on measures 3, 7, 11, 15 that in the original cantus firmus stress the Phrygian mode. You've got the move down to the lower limit of the ambitus, D, in the first two ("Er-den"; "wer-den"), and then the other two important notes for that mode, C and A.

Even in the later piece, Bach is combining those notes in both soprano and bass as well as hitting the E in the bass if the CF is not. Plus he takes the opportunity to emphasise the characteristic F-E interval. Personally, if Bach was going for a tonal setting, I would expect him to place more emphasis on developing tonal cadences at these points within the limitations of the mode, which make using a triad constructed on the dominant a little tricky.

[zethus909]

Quite a lot of the Des Prez seems centered on E to me. NB: doesn't seem like the accidentals were sung at all.

The part shown in the video is probably different from the one used by the singers then, with different musica ficta filled in by the editor (it would be really nice if more editions put the musica ficta above the notes or in brackets so that we could see which accidentals were written and which ones are educated guesses).

Saying that a song is in the E phrygian mode kinda forces us to define a lot of stuff:

What does being 'in E' mean?
- Does it need to finish on E? (finalis)
- Does it need to have a tonic on E?
- Does it need other elements like a dominant chord or melodic resolution leading to E?
- Does it need a drone or vamp to play this E a lot?

E phrygian means that it uses the notes E F G A B C D but:
- Do they have to be in the key signature?
- What if F# appears? What if it appears a lot?
- What if other borrowed harmony alterations like G# and C# and Bb appear?
- What if it has lots of resolutions towards other notes and harmonies?
- Do these notes only really matter when the chord progression is on the 'home' degree?
- Do equivalents like the Kurd Maqam count or does it have to have evolved out of the Gregorian mode?

What does 'in a mode' mean?
- Does it exclude tonal chord progressions and resolutions?
- Does it require that the composer thought it was 'in a mode'?
- Are harmonic textures inherently less modal?
- Are all polyphonic textures inherently less modal?
- Does it need to be in the historical European modal period or directly inspired by it?
- Does it need to be used for the whole song or is it meaningful to use it for as short as a single chord?

I'd surmise that different people care about very different subsets of these requirements, which is why there's so much disagreement. Though some styles basically fill most or all of them (like Indian music) so it's hard to argue about those... The contentious area is more like grey zones with lots of overlap with tonality like Renaissance music or whatever turns up in metal and techno songs.

haha no, see youre dealing with music theory people, so there has to be strict rules and arbitrary(i mean collectively agreed by at least two people) principles that appear to be correct. (and thus any seemingly contradictory rule is collectively thrown out) You are Ruining it for them by pointing out how absurd it all is. ie. where does it stop and start with respect to tonality. we must have rules. At least rules that two or more people agree on. Then the other group of two that agree on somethign else, can argue about it, with the first group.

[Gamma-UT]

Saying that a song is in the E phrygian mode kinda forces us to define a lot of stuff:

Context is everything. For a church mode, the core rules are pretty clear - emphasise the sixth and/or the fourth. Your lower limit is the D. Fux-style counterpoint rules help do the rest.

Psytrance producers on the other hand, who like a bit of Phrygian, make great use of the two semitone intervals to emphasise the idea of "strangeness". Bonus points on the sixth because under equal temperament you get the X Files "Oooh aliens" thing going on between it and the dominant.

[fmr]

After playing it (I wasn't around a keyboard) I agree with the A tonal center, which is why I retracted my post. There is definitely more of a modal character to the first setting though.

You shouldn't have retracted your post, I was actually in the middle of praising it when I went back and couldn't find it. You had some astute observations there.

Upon reflection I think the final cadences in both settings could be the biggest clue to it all. They are functionally identical [...] In both examples the closing point of the text happens on iii —> I6, with the final measure containing a plagal motion prolonging the I chord: I6 —> iv —> I. The use of a plagal extension in a setting of a modal melody paired with such a heavy religious text is surely no coincidence, and the fact that both settings end on chords whose roots match the finalis of the Phrygian melody (E and F#) has to say something about how much influence the modal melody had...

I understand enough to recognize Bach's intent there but when we take it to the point of Roman numbers I don't buy this, I may just be a modern schmuck but it sounds like i - V. "Modal" is apparently an academic matter here. I don't mean that in the pejorative sense. It just seems like the verbal argument is not borne out in sound. This is probably where my music history class was going when I got kicked out.

This chorale "Herzlich Tut Mich Verlangen" seems to be or has been very popular in Germany, apparently, and was used by Bach several times, even in organ works (where there is no text) and also as the final chorale movement of the Christmas Oratorio ("Nun seid ihr wohl genocken" in the sixth cantata). Pachelbel and Telemann also used it. More recently, the chorale melody was even used in a set of Chorale Variations by Mendelssohn, and Brahms also wrote two Chorale Preludes over it.

That said: The melody is not purely modal (as it happens frequently with the chorale melodies) but also not yet tonal. Being written in the transition period, it has elements of both universes. Bach treatment, however, ir firmly tonal, IMO, and although he respects the melody (cantus firmus) as any polyphonic composer of the Renaissance would do, the harmonization carries the melody into tonal teritory, although sometimes the harmonies had to be a little twisted (that's why Bach harmonies sometimes sound a little strange - and they sounded even more strange to his contemporaries).

The first two phrases clearly put the chorale firmly in A minor, no doubts to me about that. Then comes the third phrase, which could be on the plagal in a pure modal melody. However, this one starts in C. This note is the "repercusa" (kind of dominant) of the mode of E authentic. Bach harmonizes it carrying the chorale to the relative major (C Major), with an imperfect cadence. For me, this is a strict tonal way of thinking.

In the fourth phrase Bach introduces a small change in the melody. It should be G, A, G, F, F, E, and he changed the first F to an A. This somehow changes the melody a bit. He also used a cadence not very common: IV-I (I learned it as the plagal cadence, and I think in the anglo-saxonic countries is also known as the Amen cadence, because it is used in the final Amen in the hymns). This phrase, also because of the presence of the Bb, is the less "tonal" of the all chorale (didn't look at the text to see if it has some influence in Bach's decisions).

The fifth phrase again transports us to the A minor universe, with the chromatic ascendant of the Altos in the first bar, and then the chord sequence V - VI - IV - V (although, here, the absence of the leading tone could make us thought it is a modal sequence, but, IMO, the aluded chromatic voicing of the Altos in the previous bar destroys the modal universe). Note: I always use the roman cardinals in All caps, and the degrees are related to the tonality, no matter if the chords are major or minor.

The sixth phrase (last one) is the one where a composer of the XVth century would confirm the mode. Bach, however, imediately starts with the A chord (even with a C#, which makes it stronger, but also creates an even greater ambivalence between the major/minor), followed by the IV, I 6/4 (another voicing that reinforces the tonality), and then we have the V degree for an entire, which creates that "suspension" feeling we experience, as if the I chord had been postoponed.

Anyway, and as a conclusion, what I would say is that, although Bach harmonization is clearly tonal, the ambivalence of that harmonization coupled with a CF that is not tonal, and the fact that it doesn't end in the tonic (because THAT tonic is not the Finalis of the mode) transport us to a universe that, although tonal, is not strictically tonal, but somehow ambivalent, as I said earlier. This happens a lot if Bach's works, and it's probbably one of the reasons why Bach's work still sounds so fresh today.

You can see the harmonization done by Pachelbel (much simpler but also very interesting to watch) here: Pachelbel Herzlich Tut and the Bach chorale variation for organ (with a much more intricate polyphonic arrangement) here:

[JumpingJackFlash]

I think that E phrygian songs sounding like A minor songs that start and end on E wasn't just a Bach thing

Indeed not.

I may just be a modern schmuck but it sounds like i - V. "Modal" is apparently an academic matter here. I don't mean that in the pejorative sense. It just seems like the verbal argument is not borne out in sound.

Well, "sound" is perhaps subjective here. To modern ears, it may "sound" tonal, but does that necessarily make it so?

What does being 'in E' mean?
- Does it need to finish on E? (finalis)
- Does it need to have a tonic on E?
- Does it need other elements like a dominant chord or melodic resolution leading to E?
- Does it need a drone or vamp to play this E a lot?

Normally, ending on E would be the most important, certainly for monophonic music. With polyphonic music, the voice which had the cantus firmus (if there was one), or else the tenor would often be the deciding factor. The E is normally approached in certain ways; cadential formula (contrapuntal, not harmonic) would be very important.

E phrygian means that it uses the notes E F G A B C D but:
- Do they have to be in the key signature?
- What if F# appears? What if it appears a lot?
- What if other borrowed harmony alterations like G# and C# and Bb appear?
- What if it has lots of resolutions towards other notes and harmonies?
- Do these notes only really matter when the chord progression is on the 'home' degree?
- Do equivalents like the Kurd Maqam count or does it have to have evolved out of the Gregorian mode?

Certain notes foreign to the mode could and would often appear without destroying the mode (just as they do in tonal music without destroying the key). The idea of complete modal purity came later, as tonality started to develop (no coincidence). Modes could also be transposed of course.

This chorale "Herzlich Tut Mich Verlangen" seems to be or has been very popular in Germany,

Indeed. Commonly known as the “Passion chorale”, Bach had five chorale settings in the St. Matthew Passion alone, twice in the Christmas Oratorio and in at least three Cantatas. It is important to note however that there were different hymns sung to the same tune. My first example uses the Herzlich thut mich verlangen text by Christoph Knoll (1605). The Second uses O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden by Paul Gerhardt (1656). This is significant as Bach would have based his settings on the words, but such as discussion probably goes well beyond the scope of this forum.

Bach treatment, however, ir firmly tonal, IMO, and although he respects the melody (cantus firmus) as any polyphonic composer of the Renaissance would do, the harmonization carries the melody into tonal teritory, although sometimes the harmonies had to be a little twisted (that's why Bach harmonies sometimes sound a little strange - and they sounded even more strange to his contemporaries).

Interesting.

The first two phrases clearly put the chorale firmly in A minor

Really? Without a single A minor harmony anywhere in the first phrase, not a single G# for some time, it begins and ends clearly with E harmonies....

It would be fairly unusual for a (short) tonal piece of this era not to establish its key fairly quickly through some kind of dominant-tonic progression, but here this is completely absent from the first phrase....

More in a bit.

[fmr]

This chorale "Herzlich Tut Mich Verlangen" seems to be or has been very popular in Germany,

Indeed. Commonly known as the “Passion chorale”, Bach had five chorale settings in the St. Matthew Passion alone, twice in the Christmas Oratorio and in at least three Cantatas. It is important to note however that there were different hymns sung to the same tune. My first example uses the Herzlich thut mich verlangen text by Christoph Knoll (1605). The Second uses O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden by Paul Gerhardt (1656). This is significant as Bach would have based his settings on the words, but such as discussion probably goes well beyond the scope of this forum.

And you didn't mention the organ prelude (BWV 727). But yes, I agree with you in what concerns the different treatment given to the melody depending on the text used. For example, I find the last chorale of the Christmas Oratorio firmly tonal and festive, while the chorale of the Cantata 161 "Der Leib Zwar In Der Erden" (which is the score you posted, if I'm not mistaken) has a much more ambiguous harmony, and a somehow "sadly meditative" mood. The chorale "Ich Will Hier Bei Dir Stehen" in Matthäus Passion is also more firmly tonal and afirmative (somehow contrasting with the spirit of the whole).

The first two phrases clearly put the chorale firmly in A minor

Really? Without a single A minor harmony anywhere in the first phrase, not a single G# for some time, it begins and ends clearly with E harmonies....

It would be fairly unusual for a (short) tonal piece of this era not to establish its key fairly quickly through some kind of dominant-tonic progression, but here this is completely absent from the first phrase....

More in a bit.

What do you mean? The G# appears in the tenor in the second bar, and also in the flutes part. Although not in the cadence of the second phrase (if that's what you imply). Therefore, the ambivalence I talked about in my post. Sometimes, Bach creates ambiguous harmonies, but the whole is tonal, IMO.

BTW: I found this link on You Tube which seems to be the original harmonization of Hassler (not sure though):