discussion from 101

[jancivil]

"a mode is a scalar set"

Yeah, I'll leave this forum now so you can continue to have discussions between people that already know music theory.

Why did you snip what I tried to do for you for effect like that?
buhbye

[jancivil]

a 'mode' is a scalar set which has a certain character, owing to certain relationships with its central tone, which I'm calling 'tonic' despite the connotation of tonality.
character tones identify a mode



btw there is plenty of 'root note of the key/scale' on the internet but afaik before postmodern times it was taught the way I mentioned because of clarity: ie., we have a key with 7 roots then, as well as... the real one? Ok.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

never heard anything of the sort in my life before the internet
it's not a paradigm to me in any sense

You have never heard of V-I as a paradigm, something that ordered musical practise during late history? Call it a trend then. You know what I mean by V-I if any.

i prefer root when speaking about a tonal center of a mode.
OK, but that's you against the world

Well, more than a few modern chord based definitions do not fit with the elder modal music in which I am interested. When modes are single voiced or two voiced and without modulations, saying that the root is the base of a chord/harmony is vague: even though the root may travel to dominant or subtonic, the tonal center is still tonic. A good deal of modal music were droned and had no root movements at all. And no modulations to other modes, ofc. Thus tonic is the root of a mode historically. As said, I prefer root to distinguish it from the basic triad or tetrad tonic means in chord analysis. Since my terms rely heavily on species counterpoint, where intervals, consonants and dissonants are smallest units and can be single voiced or just two voices, I twist modern terms to fit. I am the only one concerned. Ain’t gonna teach, so it is no problem to me.

[fmr]

Well, more than a few modern chord based definitions do not fit with the elder modal music in which I am interested. When modes are single voiced or two voiced and without modulations, saying that the root is the base of a chord/harmony is vague: even though the root may travel to dominant or subtonic, the tonal center is still tonic. A good deal of modal music were droned and had no root movements at all. And no modulations to other modes, ofc. Thus tonic is the root of a mode historically. As said, I prefer root to distinguish it from the basic triad or tetrad tonic means in chord analysis. Since my terms rely heavily on species counterpoint, where intervals, consonants and dissonants are smallest units and can be single voiced or just two voices, I twist modern terms to fit. I am the only one concerned. Ain’t gonna teach, so it is no problem to me.

Sorry but it seems you have some misconceptions here. First when you say: "A good deal of modal music were droned and had no root movements at all. And no modulations to other modes, ofc".

In the XI/XII century, there were some musical instruments, like the hurdy-gurdy or some ancesters of it, that produced drones. And yes, the "jongleurs" (jugglers) seem to have used this to accompany their songs. But when you say that music had "no root movement", you lose yourself in yhe picture. Root belongs to chords (and not the mode - modes had the "finalis", which corresponds to what we call "tonic" in our two TONAL modes). There were no chords, therefore, there were no roots. Music was monodic.

BUT THERE WAS MODULATION. As a matter of fact, the word "modulation" comes from these times, and means "change the mode"". It didn't change the way we are used to today, by transposing from one key to another. There were no keys back then, because there was no absolute pitches. Only thing that was fixed was the relationship between the notes inside a certain mode, but a D in one region could be an E in another region. When people felt like they should change the character of the melody, they often changed THE MODE (Mode was and still can be a synonim of "mood"). Look what the Merriam Webster says:

Mode: a state of mind dominated by a particular emotion
when I'm in my cooking mode, I just have to go into the kitchen and make something
Synonyms for mode: cheer, feather, humor, mood, spirit, temper...

So, modulation exists since basically ever (you may trace it back to Greek music). But is another kind of modulation (may I say "the real kind"?) because it's about changing the mode. The only corresponding way in tonal music would be changing for major to minor, but since tonal music was left with only two modes, the other alternative found was transposing the music, to take advantage of the different registers that changed character (like registers in the human voice, or oin the isntruments) this way restoring some kind of "mood" changing.

ROOT: Root is the base note of a chord. Should not be used for modes, or for scales. Scales have DEGREES. Thius may look "pedantic" but using correct words helps preserving the meanings and avoids confusion. So, when we talk about chords, we have ROOTS. When we talk about mdoes, we have DEGREES. The first/last DEGREE of a mode was called FINALIS (you may call it tonic, but tonic, again, refers to TONALITY and is a FUNCTION, therefore that also should be avoided too, IMO, when talking about modes, IMO): https://www.britannica.com/art/mode-music/Plainchant

[fmr]

I will elaborate more about "chords" and "no chords" in modal music later. I will refrain for now to not put people away with the damned "TLDR" thing. For the moment, keep just this in mind: CHORDS IN MODAL MUSIC HAVE TO BE TREATED AND LOOKED AT DIFFERENTLY.

Oh, and it is also wrong to think about modes as "scales". They were not treated as "scales". Actually, they were regarded as an entity with two halves:

- The first half was from the Finalis upwards to the Repercusa (which may be regarded more or less as the actual "dominat" (but again, DOMINANT is a FUNCTION, and the Repercusa was just a polar note).

- The second half was from the Finalis downwards to the first degree of the "plagal mode" or "hypo mode" (the "brother mode" that each "authentic mode" had, and worked as an auxiliary mode).

Modes are NOT scalar. "Scale" movements only spanned, at max, six degrees (six notes - an hexachord). Even now, you will find that melodic movements often work better when you move inside an hexachord. Melodies were built using some kind of "contour formulas" or "melodic formulas" which were established along times, and helped to characterize each mode.

[fmr]

I will also try to answer the first OP question: "I've watched a ton of YouTube videos explaining modes and I still don't get how to tell what mode a song is in."

First: You have to understand if the song is TONAL or MODAL. If the song is tonal, it will be in one of two modes: Major or minor. The TONIC will be the root pof the ending chord (because we only feel the music is over when we hear the TONIC cxhord playe, usually after a perfect CADENCE (a sequence of at least the V-I chords). If you can hear tyha CADENCE, then the music is TONAL. Now - is it Major or minor? Usually, Major ends with the major TONIC chord. Minor ends with the minor TONIC chord.

But you may have a minor song ending with a major chord. It doesn't happen often, but may happen. In that case, and to be more sure about the mode, you may see if the third degree (the third not of the scale that starts with the TONIC note) that appears in the melody forms a minor thoird or a major third with that same TONIC. If it forms a minor third, the mode is minor, If it forms a major third, then he mode is major.

This only applies to TONAL MODES (Major and minor). The other modes have completely different rules, that I will talk about later.

With practice, and after a while, you wil lstart to "listen" immediately is a song is major or minor. It will reveal itself in the melodic mood/contour.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I am not going into details, just confirm that we disagree. Modulations of modes meant orginally modulations within the mode, e.g. to the dominant or subdominant, not another root and key as such. Changing modes came later in western music of which we have not got much on paper beyond tye church music. The development from Gregorian chants (single voices in one mode) to Renaissance demonstrates (polyphony with modulations in and outside the mode) this clearly and is in accordance with the history books om music, Jeppesen too.

[fmr]

I am not going into details, just confirm that we disagree. Modulations of modes meant orginally modulations within the mode, e.g. to the dominant or subdominant, not another root and key as such. Changing modes came later in western music of which we have not got much on paper beyond tye church music. The development from Gregorian chants (single voices in one mode) to Renaissance demonstrates (polyphony with modulations in and outside the mode) this clearly and is in accordance with the history books om music, Jeppesen too.

Modulation existed since ever. You had modulation already in gregorian chant. And, as I wrote, you had modulation already in Greek music. It didn't appear with the polyphony. And polyphony appeared WAY BEFORE the Renaissance. As a matter of fact, Renaissance polyphony is quite different from Medieval polyphony, and even during the Renaissance, there were some different periods. For example, the Franco-flemish polyphony substantially diverges from the counter-reform polyphony (Palestrina school), and from the Reform polyphony (the choral). All of them were Renaissance.

And there were no "dominant" or "subdominant" in modes. Those are TONAL FUNCTIONS. Modes had TWO polar notes: The Finalis (the ending note, which may be regarded as the tonic note in the TONIC system), and the Repercusa (Tonus Salmodicus) which was the note around which usually the melody developed. Therefore, no "subdominant" or correspondent note, whatsoever.

And how can "modulations within the mode" be regarded as modulations? What changes? You realize that, when you change the polar note, you are, actually, changing the mode?

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

In Pagan music everything have existed long before the cultivations of the church, however since much was lost in that it was not written down, the music of the church had the greatest inpact on the delvelopment of western music. It is trivialities of music history. Nothing controversial.

And we are not takling about dominant as chord functions but simply the fifth note. I usually preach that, not the opposite.

Remember the terms tonic etc. orginally refer to a note’s position in a diatonic scale. Their reference to chords functions came later. A modulation within a mode means that you stay long enough at another note that the sense of tonic changes forth and back, but you do not modulate chromatically or change the notes of the mode as such.

However, you are right that beyond Gregorian chants the modulations where you go from one mode to another were established in the reanissance. When Fux wrote Gradus to sum up the renaissance (1725) they were widely used, however as he notes himself, he concentrates merely on pieces in one mode, for learning the basics.

[fmr]

In Pagan music everything have existed long before the cultivations of the church, however since much was lost in that it was not written down, the music of the church had the greatest inpact on the delvelopment of western music. It is trivialities of music history. Nothing controversial.

And we are not takling sbout dominant as chord functions but simply the fifth note. I usually preach that, not the opposite.

Remember the terms tonic etc. orginally refer to a note’s position in a diatonic scale. Their reference to chords functions came later. A modulation within a mode means that you stay long enough at another note that the sense of tonic changes forth and back, but you do not modulate chromatically or change the notes of the mode as such.

The term TONIC was coined after tonality, harmony and harmonic functions. It didn't exist before. The same for the terms dominant and subdominant. That's why they should be avoided.

Now regarding your "fifth note:

1. Not all modes had the Repercusa (what you call "dominant") in the fifth note. The mode of E (improperly named Phrygian), notably had the Repercusa located in the sixth note. An the plagal, which started in B, also had the same note as the Repercusa. Therefore, in this mode the C was the strongest polar note. and the note around which the melody would move around.

2. Now let's say that you are in the mode of E, and then had the melody start moving around A. A is the Repercusa of the mode of D. Therefore, one would say that the chant "modulated" to the mode of D. It's what happens in the well known hymn "Pange Lingua" for example.

You may see the score here: https://imslp.org/wiki/File:WIMA.1bb7-P ... oriosi.pdf

Look at it, and tell me if, in your opinion, all phrases are in the mode of E.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I have no idea what this is supposed to prove. Fact: Tonic, subdominant etc. originally refer to scale degrees and can thus be applied to any mode without speaking of chord functions.

https://makingmusicmag.com/a-guide-to-scale-degrees/

A modulation within a mode simply means temporary root changes to other notes without changing the notes of the mode in contrast to modulations that change them. E.g. In Freya’s Dance we modulate to subtonic and back and subdominant and back and all is still C aeolian as far as we make use of the notes already there and C as resting point. And all harmonies arise from voiceleadings and counterpoint, there are no chords as blocks. If we had gone F# all of a sudden, we would have changed mode. If you want to complicate that, you’ll lose me soon. I see no point. Would be terrible if we cannot talk about the tonic or root of a mode because a common naming of scale degrees happened late.

[fmr]

I have no idea what this is supposed to prove. Fact: Tonic, subdominant etc. originally refer to scale degrees and can thus be applied to any mode without speaking of chord functions.

But that's the point, exactly. The "scale degree" correponding to the subdominant is meaningless in a mode. It doesn't have any more importance than any other degree. There are only two importent degrees in a mode - Finalis and above all, Repercusa.

If you have another note as a polar note, you are most certaily modulating to another mode. That's my point exactly.

https://makingmusicmag.com/a-guide-to-scale-degrees/

This refers to tonality, and tonal modes. It's meaningless in other modes. You should avoid mixing concepts. It only leads to confusion and wrong concepts arising. And by now you probably already saw that I am perfectly aware of what are the meanings of any term used.

A modulation within a mode simply means changes to other notes without changing the notes of the mode in contrast to modulations that change them. E.g. In Freya’s Dance we modulate to Subtonc and back and subdominant and back and all is still C aeolian as far as we make use of the notes already there. If we had gone F# all of a sudden, we would have changed mode. If you want to complicate that, you’ll lose me soon. I see no point. Would be terrible if we cannot talk about the tonic or root of a mode because a common naming of scale degrees happened late.

How would change the notes of the mode IF ALL MODES SHARED THE SAME NOTES AND JUST THOSE? That's absurd. There were no modulations changing notes BECAUSE THERE WERE NO NOTES TO BE CHANGED. Nor did they need to. To change a mode you only had to change the polar note. It was as simple as that.

Changing notes only started in the "musica ficta" period: https://www.britannica.com/art/musica-ficta

I will look into that tune you pointed and will tell what's my analysis.

EDIT: I looked for a score, but the closest thing I could find was a Norwegian Dance by Grieg. Does that follow the original melody? f not, can you point me to a source?

[BertKoor]

I have the feeling y'all are talking about/in concepts way beyond '101' level. Just sayin'...

[fmr]

I have the feeling y'all are talking about/in concepts way beyond '101' level. Just sayin'...

You are probably right, but music is like cherries, as we say here You pick one, and a whole lot comes attached.

But I tried to answer one of the OP's questions already. See above.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I am sorry fmr, but I do not see the point of your objections. You are making strawmans and trouble for nothing afaic. I just gave some examples from our own Freya’s Dance about modulations within and beyond the mode. Simple as that.That is how I was taught, that is what my music books imply and most importantly, that is how I use it in practise, confirming the consistency. I don’t follow you and have to pass. Maybe others can make something out of it.