A question about the Doric scale A moll

[NERF_PROTOSS]

Major and minor are modes. They always were, and ever will be, no matter you call them modes or not. You simply have to use the right terms. If people get confused, you have to explain them those are the only two that survived from the modal era, because when tonality raised, it slowly destroyed the other ones, merging them in just those two. And that even those two were destroyed, afterwards, and there was an era where things became diffused, where everything was merged with everything, and finally no mode remained, and all twelve notes were treated equally. And then...

well I don't get where the disagreement is, because yeah this is exactly right. it seems like we're talking past each other.

the argument is that modal flavours can be imparted in a tonal context, nothing more, nothing less. this is what most people are asking about when they come to ask about how modes are actually used in modern music. tunes can exist where it's no great contradiction to say either "this is in C dorian" or "this is in C minor". there are shades of grey between these two concepts.

[fmr]

that the concept of 'tonality' is restricted to the major/minor system is a common enough viewpoint, but that's not an argument in its favour. just because people believe something doesn't make it true. it's a needlessly restrictive definition.

People "believe"? Now it's a matter of faith? It's a nedlessly restriucitive definition? It is what it is. Maybe that's why composer took so little time to destroy the tonal barriers.

for one, functional harmony isn't restricted to using leading tones, but that's besides the point, anyway. is establishing a tonality restricted to the use of harmony? (and you do know practitioners of modal counterpoint used leading tones and lowered tones all the time, right? we didn't just arrive at our tonal system by accident?)

1. Is establishing a tonality restricted to the use of harmony? YES: If you fail using the tonal function of harmony, you don't establish the tonality.
2. you do know practitioners of modal counterpoint used leading tones and lowered tones all the time, right? Yes, they did, many times without even writing them. It was called "musica ficta". That's the "quite long" process that slowly destroyed modes, and established tonality. So what?

a mode suggests a tonal center. it's not complicated. can you take a guess why we name them from the letter of the first scale degree? C dorian? we just say it's a C scale for fun?

No, we say C Dorian because it's the Dorian mode starting in C. I sill don't get where that contradicts anything I wrote.

when someone plays a tune in C minor and at some point does a little Dm7 Cm7 passing chord move to elaborate the tonic, what, the song is no longer tonal? for how long? it's a magical modal rule-free experience until someone plays a B? or, what, they never actually used Dorian in the first place, even though they absolutely did, sounded like they did, and will tell you they did?

No, the song is still tonal, and guess what? It's still in C minor. No resemblance of what you call Modal. As you said yourself - it's a Dm7 Cm7 passing chord, nothing else. Nothing esoteric, nothing fancy, and certainly NOTHING MODAL. You could never establish a mode with that. Actually, you could even go on and turn around all the circle of fifths, returning to the starting point. You would never get a mode with that, just changing tonalities. It seems you lack some basic notions of harmony analysis. Did you ever heard about chromatic alterations? Or are you one of those that names a tonality out of each played chord?

I like this 'modes are not scales' thing where you then turn around and define scale in such a way that includes modes. great stuff. modes are not scales. birds are not animals. apples are not fruits. great discussion.

Glad you liked. You're welcome, There is more where those came from. Your comparisons are absurd and lack similarity, BTW- Again, they just show you clearly have no idea what mdoes are. For you they are "scales". I repeat my question: What is C-C#-D-D#-E-F-F#-G-G#-A (just an example)? Is it a scale or not? Is it a mode? Does it belong to a tonality? Seems like there are animals which are not birds, after all.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Sometimes you can also just ask yourself if the absolute truth makes a difference in practise. My guitar player is classical trained, and if I say, Hey Peter, lets dive into 1) C phrygian, 2) the C phrygian scale or 3) phrygian mode in C, I am pretty sure, he will do exactly the same.

[NERF_PROTOSS]

No, the song is still tonal, and guess what? It's still in C minor. No resemblance of what you call Modal. As you said yourself - it's a Dm7 Cm7 passing chord, nithing else. Nothing esoteric, nothingf fancy, and certainly NOTHING MODAL.

yes, there's nothing modal about using modes. doesn't matter if it sounds modal. So What is actually in D minor because Miles plays a C# in his solo. also, no modal jazz tunes are modal! and modes aren't even scales! I see the light now

[fmr]

Major and minor are modes. They always were, and ever will be, no matter you call them modes or not. You simply have to use the right terms. If people get confused, you have to explain them those are the only two that survived from the modal era, because when tonality raised, it slowly destroyed the other ones, merging them in just those two. And that even those two were destroyed, afterwards, and there was an era where things became diffused, where everything was merged with everything, and finally no mode remained, and all twelve notes were treated equally. And then...

well I don't get where the disagreement is, because yeah this is exactly right. it seems like we're talking past each other.

the argument is that modal flavours can be imparted in a tonal context, nothing more, nothing less. this is what most people are asking about when they come to ask about how modes are actually used in modern music. tunes can exist where it's no great contradiction to say either "this is in C dorian" or "this is in C minor". there are shades of grey between these two concepts.

Modal flavors? Yes, maybe. You can also have passages where there is a modal instability between major and minor. But in the end, the music remains what it is: TONAL.

tunes can exist where it's no great contradiction to say either "this is in C dorian" or "this is in C minor". there are shades of grey between these two concepts.

Again, when we are JUST talking about a tune, yes, it may be somehow modal, somehow tonal, somehow a mix of the two. If you leave the tune unharmonized, it is what it is. The momentn you apply harmony to it, the harmony will inprint the tonal center in it, and everything else will be killed.

Unless you do as Debussy or Satie did, and use the chords as just colors, carefully avoiding any chord sequence that could create a tonal center. Then yes, you can have modal music. But then you will no longer have C minor. You will have some kind of mode (which only the melody could define) but NOT C minor. Because C minor is defined (established) by a sequence of functional chords that you avoided.

If you, in some passages, decide to talk tonal, it will be toinal, If, in other passages, you decide to talk modal, it will be modal. What you will never have is tonal AND modal at the same time - it's either/or.

[vurt]

i like the modal nodes, jazzy!

[fmr]

No, the song is still tonal, and guess what? It's still in C minor. No resemblance of what you call Modal. As you said yourself - it's a Dm7 Cm7 passing chord, nithing else. Nothing esoteric, nothingf fancy, and certainly NOTHING MODAL.

yes, there's nothing modal about using modes. doesn't matter if it sounds modal. So What is actually in D minor because Miles plays a C# in his solo. also, no modal jazz tunes are modal! and modes aren't even scales! I see the light now

In what way is Dm7 - Cm7 modal?

I don't really care about jazz. But I remember listening to an album of Miles which is supposedly modal jazz, and the "harmonies" played were very sparse, basically drones. The music was carefully avoiding any kind of chordal functions, to let the modal character of the melody live. I don't know what it was, and if it was what you are talking about. As I said: I don't really care about jazz

[fmr]

Sometimes you can also just ask yourself if the absolute truth makes a difference in practise. My guitar player is classical trained, and if I say, Hey Peter, lets dive into 1) C phrygian, 2) the C phrygian scale or 3) phrygian mode in C, I am pretty sure, he will do exactly the same.

In practice, you are just playing sounds. If it sounds good, and fits the right mood, noone cares, right?

[BertKoor]

Me thinks we've reached the splitting hairs point.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

In practice, you are just playing sounds. If it sounds good, and fits the right mood, noone cares, right?

Well, if Peter does not know what I mean with C phrygian, I certainly do care. But whether he knows the semantic differences between a phrygian mode and a scale is of lesser concern in practise. However, if he wanted to be a music history teacher, the specifics may be of concern to him, but I doubt he will

[NERF_PROTOSS]

Again, when we are JUST talking about a tune, yes, it may be somehow modal, somehow tonal, somehow a mix of the two. If you leave the tune unharmonized, it is what it is. The momentn you apply harmony to it, the harmony will inprint the tonal center in it, and everything else will be killed.

Unless you do as Debussy or Satie did, and use the chords as just colors, carefully avoiding any chord sequence that could create a tonal center. Then yes, you can have modal music. But then you will no longer have C minor. You will have some kind of mode (which only the melody could define) but NOT C minor. Because C minor is defined (established) by a sequence of functional chords that you avoided.

If you, in some passages, decide to talk tonal, it will be toinal, If, in other passages, you decide to talk modal, it will be modal. What you will never have is tonal AND modal at the same time - it's either/or.

well, we don't actually disagree all that much. sorry for the snark. I just happen to think the either/or can pretty fluid. the "scales are not modes" stuff does wind me up. of course I understand that just because someone plops a bunch of notes from the mode down doesn't mean they made it sound 'modal'. still a scale, though

[fmr]

In practice, you are just playing sounds. If it sounds good, and fits the right mood, noone cares, right?

Well, if Peter does not know what I mean with C phrygian, I certainly do care. But whether he knows the semantic differences between a phrygian mode and a scale is of lesser concern in practise. However, if he wanted to be a music history teacher, the specifics may be of concern to him, but I doubt he will

If he simply listens to what you are playing and reacts well (I can't, but there are people who can), will he care what kind of sh*t he is playing on? It just plays notes that fit the notes you play. It's as simple as that.

[fmr]

Again, when we are JUST talking about a tune, yes, it may be somehow modal, somehow tonal, somehow a mix of the two. If you leave the tune unharmonized, it is what it is. The momentn you apply harmony to it, the harmony will inprint the tonal center in it, and everything else will be killed.

Unless you do as Debussy or Satie did, and use the chords as just colors, carefully avoiding any chord sequence that could create a tonal center. Then yes, you can have modal music. But then you will no longer have C minor. You will have some kind of mode (which only the melody could define) but NOT C minor. Because C minor is defined (established) by a sequence of functional chords that you avoided.

If you, in some passages, decide to talk tonal, it will be toinal, If, in other passages, you decide to talk modal, it will be modal. What you will never have is tonal AND modal at the same time - it's either/or.

well, we don't actually disagree all that much. sorry for the snark. I just happen to think the either/or can pretty fluid. the "scales are not modes" stuff does wind me up. of course I understand that just because someone plops a bunch of notes from the mode down doesn't mean they made it sound 'modal'. still a scale, though

Yes, I come to the conclusion that we are basically discussing semantics, but aren't that far from each other anyway

"because someone plops a bunch of notes from the mode down doesn't mean they made it sound 'modal'. still a scale, though " That fits my definition of scale (a bunch of notes from anywhere)

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

If he simply listens to what you are playing and reacts well (I can't, but there are people who can),

He is not one of those who can without effort, and if he could it would be due to training. He need words to trigger his knowledge, but they work instantly.

will he care what kind of sh*t he is playing on?

Question goes down the drain with the failed premise. Whatever you are trying to pull off with this, it is not working. Case is you are having a long discussion about a distinction that does not have much importance as to communicating to others what you want them to do, may it be playing or composing. And one major advantage of music theory is that it makes such communication possible. Mission accomplished. You dig into historical details from here. However if you end up contradicting current practise, wikis and whatnot, you could be right, but given these defs work in practise to the most, it will not be of much use. You'd had to write a revolutionary dissertation to change that.

[Functional]

well, we don't actually disagree all that much. sorry for the snark. I just happen to think the either/or can pretty fluid. the "scales are not modes" stuff does wind me up. of course I understand that just because someone plops a bunch of notes from the mode down doesn't mean they made it sound 'modal'. still a scale, though

But fmr wasn't talking about scales, fmr was talking about tonality. Of which there are sort of two (or three) different kind of definitions. In one definition, a tonality is established by a strong dominant to tonic resolution which will categorically involve the specific leading tone no matter what.

In another definition, tonality is more loosely defined by something having a simple tonal center that everything else gravitates towards. Under this definition, you do not have to use the leading tone. This could also be seen as a third definition and the second one instead is that tonality is established by any strong motion regardless of the leading tone. For example, bVII-I is a relatively strong D->T motion in major. But I find this unnecessary distinction myself.

The important bit to understand here that no scales are mentioned because they're not relevant insofar as minor and major tonality go. They transcend the minor and major scales, simply to put it.