discussion from 101

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Semantics, semantics. That is the cool thing about being a pragmatist: The worth of truth depends on the extent to which it makes a difference in practise. I make music using church modes very deliberately and dedicated. Basically, I just need to know the diatonic relations of a mode, e.g. that ionian in half steps from tonic is 2212221. Then I can transpose to any root. Can I work with notions of a "major key" and "minor key" only? Hell no, that is too vague, I need to keep their modes apart, and aeoloian minor is not the same as a phrygian minor and tralala. I take all seven of them, thanks. Do I need to know when I am modulating inside and outside a mode? Hell yeah. Just like Joseph in Gradus. Can I work with a notion of 7 roots per mode? Hell no, I am sorry, I need the root to be tonic and talk about root movements instead in accordance with the nomenclature of Fux and Jeppesen. Do I know Fux and Jeppesen (Palestrina) are outdated to many who rely on a lot of advanced modern sht? Hell yeah! Will their quarrels make a difference to my practise? Hell no. Have I any reason to give a fck then? Well, according to the pragmatist dictum: HELL NO!

Horses for theory courses. Every nerd for himself. One nerd´s sushi is another nerd´s sht. Different dope for different folks. The beauty is in the substances of the bloodstream. Whatever floats your submarine. To each, his own internet reality...and if you cannot beat 'em, fck 'em.

[fmr]

Look, if there is a scale called natural minor, A B C D E F G and a 'mode' known as "Aeolian", A B C D E F G, both having a central tone of A for its identity, one being totally a scale and the other can never be a scale because... - wait, there is no because, your feint at a because was a statement which doesn't in fact deny a mode's scaleness but merely doesn't affirm it exactly in the words you selected to gainsay* - is flat absurd. This was unexpected, I gotta say.

(*: "mode, in music, any of several ways of ordering the notes of a scale" also does in no way deny it's a scale. It's beyond my imagination how that gets twisted into 'it's not a scale'. It's a way of ordering a scalar set but it's not itself a scale. A metanarrative cannot be a narrative, following this logic. The only scales possible are two of seven sets of seven notes in contiguous order as given because the others - not these two, magically if only because of a label - are just ways of ordering that same set.)
good grief. this is as good as the argument from Guido's hexachord

1. A scale doesn't make a tonality. There isn't a "scale" called A minor (much less "a natural minor" - that's ignorance). Minor is minor - period. Minor MODE has three behaviors, or "formulas" - ir can be natural, ir can be harmonic and it can be melodic. ALL can happen in the same piece. When you say a piece is in A minor, you don't say it is in A minor "natural", or A minor "harmonic, because that would be stupid. You simply say it is in A minor, which contains all the formulas.

2. A minor natural is a inheritance of the old modes. When in tonal environment, the harmonic formula is the most used because... you know, HARMONY - TONALITY.

3. There never was a mode called Aeolian outside of the treaties (except nowadays, where people talk about seven modes, when in reality they were eight, grouped in pairs). And the minor mode doesn't come from that "Aeolian", BTW (how could it if that wasn't used?). It comes from the mode of D (Protus or First Tone, which is what you call now Dorian). As the Major mode comes from the mode of G (Tetrardus or Seventh Tone, sometimes also called Fourth Tone - it depends whether you give or not a number to the Plagal modes), usually known as Mixolydian. This because this was the most used mode in the Renaissance period. The "Ionian" is another modern bullsh... that was never used back then.

Now, if you want to call modes scales, if that makes you happy, by all means, call them scales. You can call them roads, streets, highways, whatever floats your boat. I just exposed my reasons to why a mode ISN'T a scale. And I will not answer more.

BTW - the hexachord is not from Guido. Guido created a method to TRANSPOSE (MODULATE) based on hexachords (the hexachord natural, the hexachord mole - from the B Mole or B Rotundum - and the hexachord durum - from the B Durum or B Quadrum/Quadratum). That's the reason why, even today, "bemol" and "bequadro" are the words used to designate the flat sign and the natural sign, both in tialian as in spanish and portuguese). Why an hexachord? Because an hexachord is the distance from D (the first note of the first mode) to B (the "problematic" note). Now, back to the point please.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

There isn't a "scale" called A minor

Are you sure, fmr? The wiki and elsewhere have no problems with that term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_minor

A minor is a minor scale based on A

[gaggle of hermits]

Semantics, semantics. That is the cool thing about being a pragmatist: The worth of truth depends on the extent to which it makes a difference in practise. I make music using church modes very deliberately and dedicated. Basically, I just need to know the diatonic relations of a mode, e.g. that ionian in half steps from tonic is 2212221. Then I can transpose to any root. Can I work with notions of a "major key" and "minor key" only? Hell no, that is too vague, I need to keep their modes apart, and aeoloian minor is not the same as a phrygian minor and tralala. I take all seven of them, thanks.

i think you've made it clear that what you don't do is make music using "church modes". from what i can tell you're using folk modes (like the dorian of "drunken sailor") and applying some rules on top derived from church music (mostly palestrina from what i can tell). this is the source of your confusion, which winds up with you seeming to believe there are seven modes - though i can't tell whether you mean seven church modes or seven modes that modern musicians now recognise.

if we're talking church modes, your count is a bit off and i think much of your confusion stems from that. this repeats a bit what fmr was explaining but this might make it a bit clearer.

heinrich glarean defined 12 modes in the dodechordon, published in the mid-16th century. now, you could argue that palestrina was already well advanced in his education by the time this happened. but he does seem to use the ionian and other examples of the glarean modes in his masses, so although the ionian was a "new" mode in relative terms it seems to have been in common practice by the time glarean expanded the list from the eight that had been in use for some time.

how come glarean came up with 12*? well, the answer to that will probably settle why you seem a bit confused over modes, although fmr has made a good stab at explaining it (hint: glarean notes the mediant as well as the final and cofinal as the significant tones in a mode). if you apply the way theorists like glarean or zarlino wrote about modes, you wind up with a different practice to the one you seem to be describing for your own music.

tl;dr - people need to be a lot clearer about what they mean by "mode". there are many different uses of "modes" and they are not entirely compatible.

* the gloriously named rockstro added the final two in 1880.

[fmr]

There isn't a "scale" called A minor

Are you sure, fmr? The wiki and elsewhere have no problems with that term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_minor

A minor is a minor scale based on A

I know that tonalities are usually referred to as "scales". Problem is "scale" is a broad term, that designates a lot of things, and tonalities are another broad term that designate comperx realities, that comprehend scales, but go way beyond that (ths same way as "modes" do).

For example, if you play from E to E and then back to A, would you say you are "playing a scale"? And if you play A, C, E, A, C, E, A? Would you say you are still playing a "scale"? I bet in the first case you would say you wre playing the "scale" of A minor, and in the second case you awere playing the A minor "arpeggio". But you were playing A minor in both cases. What does thatr leave us on? Is A minor a "scale", What is the "arpeggio" then? Still A minor? And a chord sequence of Am, Dm, E7, Am. Is it A minor or what? But... is it a "scale"?

I think you got what I mean.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

i think you've made it clear that what you don't do is make music using "church modes".

No, I did not. I did imply that I use them for folkmusic. Using church modes does not equal using it for church music.

from what i can tell you're using folk modes (like the dorian of "drunken sailor")

None of our tunes are written in dorian yet. It is to come.

this is the source of your confusion, which winds up with you seeming to believe there are seven modes

I (tend to) use the seven basic church modes, which survived to this day (altered during history or not), though there are countless of others prior and post to the church inside and outside of it. Shall we count them?

Ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian and locrian. Compatible with Fux, Jeppesen and countless of others afaik and even my keys and piano roll lay out. It is those mentioned in the first part of the wiki. Quite trivial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)

There is no confusion here. 7 equals 7. Speak for yourself.

As for the rest. Well, whatever. As to (idosynkratic) semantic discussions, which does not relate much to my practise. I have already given you the answer in what you quoted

[gaggle of hermits]

there have never been "seven basic church modes", or rather there were as many modes but they don't correspond to the list you've provided.

there are seven modes that are commonly recognised today. but they are not traditional church modes. locrian got added relatively recently simply for completeness. it seems a bit weird to link to a wikipedia page as the basis for your claim given that right at the top it says:

"Related to the diatonic modes are the eight church modes or Gregorian modes, in which authentic and plagal forms of scales are distinguished by ambitus and tenor or reciting tone."

[fmr]

I (tend to) use the seven basic church modes, which survived to this day, though there are countless of others prior and post to the church inside and outside of it. Shall we count them?

Ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian and locrian. Compatible with Fux, Jeppesen and countless of others afaic. It is those mentioned in the first part of the wiki. Quite trivial.

There are no church modes that "survived to this day". They were definitely all buried in the XVII century. And there were NEVER seventh modes, as I explained. Bu the time Palestrina started composing, modal system was already dying, from centuries of "musica ficta", and what was in use was a kind of hybrid system that wasn't still tonal but was already very close.

For example, Claudio Monteverdi, which was less than 50 years younger than Palestrina, already composed in a system very very close to tonality (and used a style called "seconda pratica" in his "madrigali" that is very close to accompanied melody, far from the polyphonic style, and a style that would led to Opera). Andrea Gabrieli, which was more or less contemporary to Palestrina, also used a language close to tonality.

Arcangelo Corelli, which was less than 100 years younger than Palestrina, was already completely tonal. So, by the time Palestrina worked, the "church modes" weren't to be considered anymore, because compositions had so many occuring alterations and cadences that the mode would be vanished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)

There is no confusion here. 7 equals 7. Speak for yourself.

This article is not a good source about modes. It has some good things but many wrong things. You should read the Britannica article I linked to, which is much more correct.

Modes and modal music are a complex reality, spanning many centuries, and the modal practice evolved a lot during those centuries, especially when polyphony appeared. The way modern composers like Debussy and Messiaen, for example, used modes has nothing to do with the church/medieval practice, or the polyphonic practice. They used the modes in their own way, they even created new modes, and they created an entirely new language to use them.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

For example, if you play from E to E and then back to A, would you say you are "playing a scale"?

Just without any other context? I think I would need one. If I was just rehearsing scales and made a lot of movments back and forth, I could easily think of any move as rehearsing the scale.

However, In Valkyrie, the lead guitar plays from C to G stepwise twice in a scalish way, but as a semi-melodic theme that are counterpointed by whatnot in the end. So in a musical context, I would hardly think of anything as scales, but melodies, motifs, themes etc.

And if you play A, C, E, A, C, E, A? Would you say you are still playing a "scale"? I bet in the first case you would say you wre playing the "scale" of A minor, and in the second case you awere playing the A minor "arpeggio". But you were playing A minor in both cases. What does thatr leave us on? Is A minor a "scale", What is the "arpeggio" then? Still A minor? And a chord sequence of Am, Dm, E7, Am. Is it A minor or what? But... is it a "scale"?

I think I get the idea. Answer is same as above, but I am not fit to make any final semantic decisions here. I just know the term A minor is common and in use, whatever it means to people. As far as I am concerned, talking about scales without context is like talking about letters without context in contrast to writing novels. they are just building blocks. When scales transform into themes and modes, not in terms of a lot of technical definitions of modes, but actually "moods", you can use them to create certain perceptual and emotional aspirations, they are deffo not longer just scales in my book, as less as an exciting novel are but series of letters. However, people still need a word for letters, so I guess, all is okay if we take context into consideration.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I (tend to) use the seven basic church modes, which survived to this day, though there are countless of others prior and post to the church inside and outside of it. Shall we count them?

Ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian and locrian. Compatible with Fux, Jeppesen and countless of others afaic. It is those mentioned in the first part of the wiki. Quite trivial.

There are no church modes that "survived to this day". They were definitely all buried in the XVII century. And there were NEVER seventh modes, as I explained. Bu the time Plaestrina started composing, modal system was already dying, from centuries of "musica ficta", and what was in use was a kind of hybrid system that wasn't still tonal but was already very close.

For example, Claudio Monteverdi, which was less than 50 years younger than Palestrina, already composed in a system very very close to tonality (and used a style called "seconda pratica" in his "madrigali" that is very close to accompanied melody, far from the polyphonic style, and led to Opera). Andrea Gabrieli, which was more or less contemporary to Palestrina, also used a language close to tonality.

Arcangelo Corelli, which was less than 100 years younger than Palestrina, was already completely tonal. So, by the time Palestrina worked, the "church modes" weren't to be considered anymore, because composition had so many occuring alterations that the mode would be vanished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)

There is no confusion here. 7 equals 7. Speak for yourself.

This article is not a good source about modes. It has some good things but many wrong things. You should read the Britannica article I linked to, which is much more correct.

Modes and modal music are a complex reality, spanning many centuries, and the modal practice evolved a lot during those centuries, especially when polyphony appeared. The way modern composers like Debussy and Messiaen, for example, used modes has nothing to do with the church/medieval practice, or the polyphonic practice. They used the mdoes in their own way, they even created new mdoes, and they created an entirely new language to use them.

No more semantics to me, so I will leave the reading of this post to a point in the future, where I am bored. Fact: I use the modes I use. There are friggin seven OF THOSE I USE (whether they got altered through history or not). Not hundred. Seven does not mean there are only seven in the world. The seven modes I USE are used completely in accordance to my sources despite all objections. Show me the quotes from Gradus and Jeppesen where I am wrong, if you want to get to me, for they will always be greater authorities to me than any net riders. I have referred to my sources, given my reasons, given examples from my music and info how it is made. Everything is under control from my pov. It is compatible with the basic theory I know and have been taught and it demonstrates its worth when I compose tunes and is emboddied to an extent where I can use much of it intuitively. Under these circumstances, you need more than semantic textwalls to make a difference. Give it up.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

there have never been "seven basic church modes", or rather there were as many modes but they don't correspond to the list you've provided.

I never wrote there were just seven in the world, I just gave you a wiki link to the seven I use and are used today. They are called church modes in many theory books, whereby it is implied that they have evolved from greek modes and whatnot, but in fact they are layed out by modern instruments and have had their impact during devolopement on western music.

To be honest, I think this a pile of strawmen. Like referring to such trivialities as my list and the fact that these are in use today is the same as implying there were only ever seven and they did not evolve. Show me the post where I said that. Vulgar BS. As if none of you are interested in how this really works from an applied perspective, but just want to beat your own strawmen and talk every trival concept down until it means nada to none. Go ahead, then. Pretend I am an idiot who does not know my music history if it brings salvation to you. It still does not change my practise.

And let me be twice as honest as return for your favors: If I ever were to coorporate with a fellow composer, none of you would come first to mind, because if I suggest that we e.g. explore C phrygian, we first have to discuss endlessy whether there is such a thing. Ain't gonna work. Apart from that I love you all by heart. It is a technical reason, not personal

[gaggle of hermits]

if you're going to wilfully misinterpret everything people say to you, you're going to remain very confused.

in that context, i find the way you were trying to direct the "noobs" to a 101 thread richly ironic. if you can't separate the different use-cases for modes (greek, diatonic, church/ecclesiastical), what hope do you have of explaining them to the "noobs"?

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

in that context, i find the way you were trying to direct the "noobs" to a 101 thread richly ironic. if you can't separate the different use-cases for modes (greek, diatonic, church/ecclesiastical), what hope do you have of explaining them to the "noobs"?

Well, by starting with the most simple departure, namely the main seven modes in existence now (which still do not mean they are the only ones), which practical oriented music books do when people are learning the deed. Those are also those of Fux's and beyond, the teacher of Mozart, Bach and Hayn. Your music history and it diversity does not change these fact, thus music history is not necessary to technically understand the concept of present modes and how to use them. What it is now and what is was then are not the same questions. If you want to explain the students what modes are in a historical perspective, go ahead, but if you keep contradicting common use since Fux, your history controversies will be of little use.

[gaggle of hermits]

where does locrian feature in fux?

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

It is a part of the system, but not in use for obvious reason (the tritonus). Besides Gradus is very basic, it does not explore every mode, just remind that principles remain. His own preferences do not matter in this regard. Fux's rules have long been overwritten, but the system has not changed much. The piano is still the piano, but the playing has changed.

I break his rules too as a point. The famous referred to below. My choirs are often open intervals with parallel fifths among the moves.