How did it come to be major/minor instead of 7 modes?

[Farnaby]

Most "mixolydian" progressions in Rock that I hear, are actually Major, with a borrowed bVII7 chord in there.

But that is the point surely. A major key with a flattened 7th IS the Mixolydian. So it isn't the major scale at all.

[Farnaby]

The modes, when harmonized into tertian chords and progressions, have dodgy dominants.

Aeolian - Im7-vm7
Dorian - same
Phrygian - m7 and m7b5
Lydian - maj7 and maj7
Mixolydian - V7 and m7
Locrian - m7b5 and bMaj7

Harmonic minor was "created" in direct relation to this "problem"

As I said earlier you can only create a true Dominant/Tonic relationship in the major and minor scales. They aren't 'dodgy dominants' they aren't dominants at all.

[Melkor]

Re: mixolydian
Yep true, but they hit the V chord, and it's usually Major... true mixolydian should have a minor chord at V... This is further obscured by using a naked power chord at V, although it usually "implies" a major chord at V, imo.
It's true that a major triad at V isn't a real dominant, but it's close

Re: dodgy dominants.
Yes I agree, they aren't dominants.
However, they are dodgy usurpers, trying to pass as dominants

[Melkor]

I guess, we could say, in that case, that it's Major, with a borrowed bVII chord, or Mixolydian, with a borrowed V chord.

Either way, a prog that moves through I-Maj V-Maj bVII-Maj is using a borrowed chord.

[BertKoor]

[...] If you really want to hear a church mode, you will have to listen to some classics. Better still, listen to Ravel's Bolero and you will hear all 7 modes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAs2KMqWho

I can't find anything that confirms this to be true. Everywhere says C major with some phrygian it seems. Also David Bennett gives a much more convincing case that these modes aren't uncommon in popular music.

Have you actually watched the linked video? It's not a regular rendition of the Bolero, but one made for educational purposes where the same melody is played in all the seven modes.

You should also be aware that music theory is mostly about naming things, so you can talk about them. It's easier to just say "the next song we play in E Minor" than to spell out root/tonic and all notes of the used scale.

The theoretical system around modes worked good in the Dark Ages with instruments like the bagpipe, hurdy-gurdy, lyra and lute. These all have drone tones, and that limited what type of music you'd make with it because you're kind of stuck in one chord for the song. Arabic and Indian music are mostly still like that as well.

When 12-tone instruments like the harpsichord and fortepiano (literally translated "LoudSoft") became popular and composers found the potential of the well-tempered tuning (good info about that on wikipedia, a new theory was needed to describe what they did.

The two systems (modal and harmonic) are not totally mutually exclusive. It's just that in some situations one makes more sense to use than the other. Like the theoretical scientific foundation of light: there is the theory that describes light as photon particles, and there's another theory that describes light as waves. Depending on what you are trying to explain you chose the model.

If you take a piece of pure modal music and analyse it harmonically, you have to conclude that harmonically speaking nothing is happening there. Vice versa, take a piece of harmonically complex music or even atonal music and try to apply modal theory: you'll be shoehorning.

[ReleaseCandidate]

Let's start with 'functional harmony'. Rameau (which I mentioned in my post earlier) made the first book on it, Riemann has written the usual definitions of functional harmony - especially for the major/minor scales predominately used in the 19th century.

In german speaking music theory there is a distinction between functional harmony theory (Riemann) - where you use mainly the functions 'tonic', 'subdominant' and 'dominant' and scale degree theory (what's the real translation of 'Stufentheorie'?) where roman numerals are used (I, II, III, ....) for the seven degrees of a heptatonic scale and it's chords.

In minor scales there is (are) no dominant or subdominant (functions), but 'cadence functions'.

Chord notation: Nmaj7 is a major chord with a major 7th, N-7 is a minor chord with a minor 7th, N7 is a dominant 7th (major chord with a minor 7th)

In modern functional theory in a major scale the 7th chords of the following degrees are
tonics (static, no leading tone): Imaj7, III-7
VI, IVmaj7 and II-7 are subdominants (slight tension, harmonic leading tone (iv -> iii)) and V7 and VII07 dominants (stronger tension, melodic leading tone (vii -> i) ).
Using this system (regarding the leading tone) with the minor scale yields the following:
Tonics (no leading tone): I-7, IIImaj7
Cadence functions (leading tone): II-7(b5), IV-7, VImaj7, VII7
V-7 only has a slight tension (no leading tone and no tritone)
So, to be able to use V7 (leading tone and tritone) there is the harmonic minor scale, that has a V7 chord instead of a V-7 chord to get the (usual) cadence V7 - I7.

The same works with all other modes (and scales).

If you take a piece of pure modal music and analyse it harmonically, you have to conclude that harmonically speaking nothing is happening there.

If by 'pure modal music' you mean monophonic music, then yes. But even in the west, with the organum, polyphony 'startet' around 900.
To call for example renaissance motets (counterpoint in general) 'harmonically nothing', is a, well, bold statement - to put it euphemistically. But if you were talking about functional harmony, then yes, functional harmony does not work for these, that's why there exist many models of harmony (like counterpoint as theory).

[Farnaby]

I think you are confirming, as I said earlier, that only the major and minor (as altered into the harmonic minor) support the classic V7-I cadence that underpins functional harmony (i.e. most Western music since 1700).

The other modes don't support this, and therefore harmonising modal music generally has a simpler, perhaps archaic, feel to it. We can see this in the old English folk song Scarborough Fair (made famous by Simon and Garfunkel). This is clearly in the Dorian mode and to shoehorn a V7 chord to accompany it would sound out of place.

This isn't to say that there can be no harmonic interest, but typically it will be less colourful. The likes of Vaughan Williams and others showed that the modes have plenty of life even in a more modern setting.

As for the Renaissance, you can see the newer tonal system gradually replacing the modal. So there is plenty of rich harmony to be had. You can hear the conflict between the two occasionally in things like the 'false relations' device where the leading note might be raised and flattened simultaneously (in different voices) depending upon the melodic direction.

[ReleaseCandidate]

I think you are confirming, as I said earlier, that only the major and minor (as altered into the harmonic minor) support the classic V7-I cadence that underpins functional harmony (i.e. most Western music since 1700).

It's the other way around. Functional harmony is meant describe exactly that. It's not that Rameau or Riemann said 'you have to use the D-T cadence', but that composers and musicians who used a major scale tended to use this cadence the most.
You cannot easily describe other modes than major and minor using functional harmony, because it has never been meant for this.
Same as you can't use counterpoint to describe music that relies on functional harmony.
Each 'type' of music (harmony) has it's own model of harmony. Composers that 'invent' a scale also (most of the time) need to find a fitting model of harmony (either explicit or implicit).
For example Messiaen and 'his' scales:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mts.2005.27.1.1

The other modes don't support this, and therefore harmonising modal music generally has a simpler, perhaps archaic, feel to it.

But that's not the 'fault' of the modes, but the usage of the wrong harmonic model (if your goal has been to generate harmonically 'complex' music).
Btw. I would rather call pentatonic scales and their usage 'archaic' or 'simple', but I don't like that notion at all.

[jancivil]

Counterpoint does not through itself mean there can be no functional harmony. You'll be vacating a very wide swath of music with that. JS Bach is both. Practically all the time.
There is nothing whatever in the definition of counterpoint to draw from to come away with such a notion.

"In minor scales there is (are) no dominant or subdominant (functions), but 'cadence functions'."
A V-i is a dominant-tonic relationship in minor, not different than major dominant function aside from the quality of i, vs. I. NB: lower case vs capital.
To assert there is another word used, in any language, that means something other than dominant or function while describing exactly this is absurd. Harmonic cadence in probably the majority of cases is dominant-tonic, complete or not. Past this there's a plagal cadence IV-I and that's about it.
We could invent and say the VII-I in Mixolydian is a kind of cadence but that lies outside the focus spoken of there.

The use of the plural in the construction 'minor scales' would seem to indicate knowing there is more than one. Two of three types enjoy a major V w leading tone by definition.

Again, a V triad of major quality, in functioning harmony has a name, and it's dominant. A natural minor scale lacking function - arguably practically Aeolian here, since there is no "natural" dominant on v - sure, but from the very outset of the use of the term minor key people were inserting that function.
Read the history, wherever your baroque theorist believed minor key tonality derives from originally (eg., some argued t'was Dorian), it wasn't considered minor tonality before the major V and the change of 7 to ^7. And the modal thing was going fast out of style.


Farnaby there has it right.

[jancivil]

Most "mixolydian" progressions in Rock that I hear, are actually Major, with a borrowed bVII7 chord in there.

Really? How frequently does this borrowing occur in this purported majority of rock songs? Some of the time? Half of the time? Where's the data in support of these assertions.
If all the time, it's Mixolydian. If your melodic/linear material largely contains b7, it's probaby Mixo. OTOH we could encounter major key prevalence with a secondary subdominant, ie., IV of IV cadencing on IV...


_most that I hear_ tends to look like fallacy of limited sampling when there's no support for the contention

[Melkor]

Well, let's have a look.

Times Like These - Foo Fighters

D - Am - C - Em D

and the chorus:
C - Em - Dsus4 D

So, we have a Maj tonic, and a minor v chord.
The Em has been borrowed from D Ionian, where here it is acting as a regular old minor ii chord.


Long story short, it's Mixolydian, but with stuff nicked from Major.

Basically, any song that has a Maj tonic, a Maj V, and a Maj bVII.
That ain't Mixolydian, but a hybrid, "Mixionian"

[BertKoor]

Well, let's have a look.

Times Like These - Foo Fighters

D - Am - C - Em D

and the chorus:
C - Em - Dsus4 D

Chords tell just a part of the story. What about the melody?

[jancivil]

most that I hear tends to look like fallacy of limited sampling…

Well, let's have a look.

Times Like These - Foo Fighters

D - Am - C - Em D

and the chorus:
C - Em - Dsus4 D

So, we have a Maj tonic, and a minor v chord.
The Em has been borrowed from D Ionian, where here it is acting as a regular old minor ii chord.

Looking to chord quality for the definition of a mode is unnecessary and misses the boat. “Maj tonic, and a minor v chord” doesn’t define the mode, it only cites a couple of components of the thing.

Em exists in D mixolydian, does it not? There’s nothing irregular about it. Hence there is no need whatsoever to borrow it from elsewhere.

Long story short, it's Mixolydian, but with stuff nicked from Major.

Basically, any song that has a Maj tonic, a Maj V, and a Maj bVII.
That ain't Mixolydian, but a hybrid, "Mixionian"

There is no *V* in that example. ( And I don’t know the second progression isn’t IV - vi - V4-3 in G major. In itself on paper it’s more suited to G major.)

The unforced error here seems to suggest wanting something to be true that, alas, is not.

[jancivil]

It's true that a major triad at V isn't a real dominant, but it's close

Why isn’t it?

(spoiler: it is)

Re: dodgy dominants.
Yes I agree, they aren't dominants.
However, they are dodgy usurpers, trying to pass as dominants

Only if you consider the dominant-tonic paradigm as necessary, ie., all other considerations are suspect. Of the nominal seven modes only two have that; also a genuine Ionian music, ie., the set used modally, has a ‘major 7’ but it isn’t working - functioning - as leading tone to tonic. The leading tone to tonic means the music is tonal. (Lydian has a V but it cannot be said to be tonal or have a key.)

Here, the first melody note, tonic = E, is D#. “Harmonically” the only thing that happens is IV - I. ^7 is never the leading tone.
https://youtu.be/j3yE2NAdNKo

Or there is say, Hindustani music that might be labeled “in major key” or something on a Youtube page, but ^7 just does other moves (the parent to these raags known as Bilaval), we’d say Ionian mode as westerners.

The convention of the dominant seventh chord is strong in “classical” or Common Practice Period music, but V-I is dominant-tonic in tonal music, period.

[jancivil]

Let's start with 'functional harmony'.

I prefer not as it’s led to a big ol’ red herring and extraneous stuffs.

In minor scales there is (are) no dominant or subdominant (functions), but 'cadence functions'.

no idea what this difference between the two terms is supposed to be. But harmonic minor and melodic minor ascending have ^7 as leading tone to tonic, for the reason of dominant-tonic harmonic function, so that one’s out. And we see you know this already.

Chord notation: Nmaj7 is a major chord with a major 7th, N-7 is a minor chord with a minor 7th, N7 is a dominant 7th (major chord with a minor 7th)

well…
“Dominant” is a function in tonal harmony. IE., a maj/min7 chord might happen at I (or anywhere, eg., all 3 chords in 12 bar basic blues are this) and never call for a rising fourth V-I resolution or its substitution. Now, some very knowledgeable people confound it pretty frequently, but NB., the Bb7 in eg., James Brown Say it Loud is not a dominant function so I think the label is in conflict with it being the I chord (the only chord) throughout the verse.

and BTW, the mere “7” after a chord name indicating a minor 7 per se is only the convention in pop music.
Talking in Roman Numerals involves a different convention. It’s a given diatonically but exceeding that (or V7 in minor, compare the chromaticism in secondary dominants) we have to justify or elucidate the quality of “7” in RN analyses.

Speaking of which:

II-7(b5), IV-7, VImaj7, VII7
V-7

In Roman Numeral analysis, minor or diminished chords are indicated in lower case. “V-7 only has a slight tension” looks like major triad/m7. Here a minus sign after the denoted chord root means flatting what follows, not to retrofit the quality of its 3rd. So at a glance we think you’re giving the quality of the 7th but our triads are indistinguishable (unless we know the diff, but it’s still more mental work to get there).

Cadence functions (leading tone): II-7(b5), IV-7, VImaj7, VII7 has a slight tension (no leading tone and no tritone)

The ii7 chord in minor is a diminished/minor chord, known as half-diminished. From C tonic, D F Ab C. There is no leading tone to anywhere here, if that’s what ‘leading tone’ in parentheses is to mean. iv7 in minor here is minor/minor, F Ab C Eb, again no leading tone to anywhere. Leaving alone that IV-I can be a cadence, with its own name, Plagal. It can happen in tonal function so ‘it’s not a function’ hasn’t a use value I can see. “Cadence function” is a tautology really. google it for a wild goose chase.

The same works with all other modes (and scales)

At this point I’ve kinda lost the plot, but there is no leading tone present in these modes, unless we, ah, shoehorn the native 7 of Lydian into a definition…

If you take a piece of pure modal music and analyse it harmonically, you have to conclude that harmonically speaking nothing is happening there.

If by…

I’m sure Bert means functional harmony by that in context. He’s not wrong.