I finally understood modes

[Fannon]

To say I didn’t offer “counter explanation”… I take offense to that, it’s gaslighting. It’s unfair. In fact, I argued points well enough to see you reform a few things, incl. that ‘mistake’.
Goodbye.

Ok, sorry for that - you're right that you did elaborate on it. I didn't fully get it but that's my part. Maybe I just need to think it through better. My impression is that we're just having different terms and mental concepts in mind and talked besides each other.

And I am sorry for putting it like that. It for sure was not meant as a gaslighting attemt, but I can see that it came across as such. That's my fault.

[jancivil]

thanks for that

besides you and me and at cross purposes, I still saw the danger of people reading, from a newby perspective, & finding ‘it’s just the starting point’ reiterated again and again and it snows the rest

[jancivil]

Would Just Intonation have anything to do with why these "scales" are rather known as "modes"?

in a word, no.

‘Lydian scale’ is abstract; ‘Lydian mode’ is the scale in practice. That’s the difference.

EG: in Clement’s article on FZ’s Chord Bible ‘Lydian minor’ refers to a scale or more broadly the tendency towards #4 or #11. So we’re perhaps more liable to see that vertical extension on minor, per that purpose, than in tonal jazz usage, ie., where a ii7 chord’s 11 is the “natural” 11.

Now, it’s true FZ leaned Lydian (Clement has a paper on that as well) horizontally to the extent it manifests vertically all over the place, so that usage doesn’t stray so far from the overarching modal concept for me.

[camsr]

I had a semester of Music Theory, I wanted to learn how to read and write music without playing an instrument. I achieved that goal, however I hardly put it to use anymore. Musicians going by a sheet play by a world of notes on a stave, however I tend to think about music as ratios and numerics, however I don't play by a sheet. I am not a good musician. I do understand there is a deep history to music, however I only ever realized music via MIDI sequencers and ET keyboards. The nomenclature of music theory has very little meaning to me. However if a scale is relative tunings without an absolute frequency, and a mode is an absolute harmonic series without "harmony", then I think I have understood it all as well as I ever can. I have never listened to music to appreciate the ideas of progression that the theory heralds as "absolute". But when I decided to go into a music theory course, it became clear that harmonic progression is indeed a thing. Just like septimal chromatic tones are a thing, however it could just be called bad tuning... the notes of a stave do not indicate music to my mind.

BTW who is FZ?

[EdwardGivens]

To add to the fun:
The medieval conception of mode isn't exactly the same as simply white keys. There's no "locrian" until the 18th century.
The church modes were dorian,phrygian,lydian and mixolydian if I remember correctly.
Explained via the 11th century concept of hexachords -
https://www.britannica.com/art/hexachord
What's considered here is where the half steps occur in the upper and lower hexachords of each mode. A different kind of theory, and like all music theory comes after the fact. We tend to act as if the concept comes first. For example people didn't just wake up and discover polyphony in the 10th century...
Oh and none of that stuff explains instrumental music at all, which doesn't appear written down until like 1400. (Estampie) Hurdy Gurdys and Bagpipes were both banned in church, as was dancing.
```
Much further down the road you have some very complex polyphonic music that still is pretty linear in construction. The harmonic rhythm(?) is still not what we think of as common practice.
Music by Cypriano de Rore, Ornamented by Giovanni Bassano, so this is high Renaissance -

[fmr]

To add to the fun:
The medieval conception of mode isn't exactly the same as simply white keys. There's no "locrian" until the 18th century.
The church modes were dorian,phrygian,lydian and mixolydian if I remember correctly.
Explained via the 11th century concept of hexachords -
https://www.britannica.com/art/hexachord
What's considered here is where the half steps occur in the upper and lower hexachords of each mode. A different kind of theory, and like all music theory comes after the fact. We tend to act as if the concept comes first. For example people didn't just wake up and discover polyphony in the 10th century...
Oh and none of that stuff explains instrumental music at all, which doesn't appear written down until like 1400. (Estampie) Hurdy Gurdys and Bagpipes were both banned in church, as was dancing.
```
Much further down the road you have some very complex polyphonic music that still is pretty linear in construction. The harmonic rhythm(?) is still not what we think of as common practice.
Music by Cypriano de Rore, Ornamented by Giovanni Bassano, so this is high Renaissance -

There wasn't EVER a locrian mode (nor a Jonian, nor a Aeolian, at least outside of the treaties, namely the Dodecachordon, written by Glarean in 1547). In that treaty, Glarean proposed to extend the mode system from the eight (4+4) in use to twelve, that way covering all the tonics from C to A (the B was left out because it was yet considered a "danger tone" - actually, most of the times music was performed with a B flat, although the written note was the B). Fact is composers basically ignored that, and kept composing in the old and proven 4+4 mode system.

About 100 years later the entire system colapsed, anyway, and was replaced by the tonal system that we knopw today, with just two modes (Major, which was somehow derived from the Lydian and Mixolidian modes with some changes that were already being played/sung although not written), and the minor, derived from the Doriam and Phrygian modes.

So, saying that the Locrian was used in XVIII century doesn't quite fir the picture. In the XVIII century, composers were writing tonally.

The way things are today comes from mistakes over mistakes done by people who didn't understand the old modal system, and treated it pretty much in the same way of the tonal system. That's why most people keep saying and writing that the Major comes from the Jonian (it doesn't) and the minor comes from the Aeolian (again, it doesn't), just because it happens the notes coincide. It's absurd. Those modes were not common (if used AT ALL) at the time. Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian were. I also don't understand why today people keep talking about the "jonian" (it's the Major, why do we need another name?) and the "Aeolian" (it's the minor, and again we don't need another name for it).

AS always, the best way to really understand modes is to listen, read and analyse music written using them. I can give you some examples (even of music written nowadays), if you want.

[BertKoor]

BTW who is FZ?

FZ =


Frank Zappa.

I also hate it when people use abbreviations and assume everybody else knows what they're talking about.

[EdwardGivens]

So, saying that the Locrian was used in XVIII century doesn't quite fir the picture.

Never said so. It's first mentioned in the 18th century. In a treatise, yes.
Harold S. Powers, "Locrian", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition

Does anybody actually use it?

Quand Je Suis Mis by Guillame de Machaut is in "aeolian", natural minor, call it what you will. Call it Fred if you like. I care not. White keys, hovers around A Secular of course.
I have an 14th century estampie floating around in my head that's ma- I mean Ioni- oops. White keys, hovers around C
I'm no longer part of the early music scene professionally. Something I always thought was funny is the tendency to asssume theories come ahead of time and then musicians conform to them. Did you know? Polyphony wasn't invented until someone talked about it. Up until the 10th century people just didn't know how to play more than one note at a time or harmonise. Or vibrato. Someone bitches about it in a treatise or letter so....it wasn't done? (cough)

`````
enough.
Listen to this. Isn't it divine? Early Renaissance. Tastes may indeed change but music does not "progress" in the manner in which we were taught.

[EdwardGivens]

I also hate it when people use abbreviations and assume everybody else knows what they're talking about.

'swhy I never abbrev.

[jamcat]

’swhy I ne’er abbr.

FIFY

[fmr]

So, saying that the Locrian was used in XVIII century doesn't quite fir the picture.

Never said so. It's first mentioned in the 18th century. In a treatise, yes.
Harold S. Powers, "Locrian", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition

Does anybody actually use it?

Quand Je Suis Mis by Guillame de Machaut is in "aeolian", natural minor, call it what you will. Call it Fred if you like. I care not. White keys, hovers around A Secular of course.

If it "hovers around A", did it occur to you that A is the "repercusa" (tenor note, dominant, salmodic tone, whatever you call it) of the Dorian Mode? Also, A is Dorian Plagal. I will not call it "Fred", but for sure you can call it what you wish. You would be wrong, though

Many melodies in Doran and Phrygian evolve around A. That doesn't mean they are in Aeolian mode, just that A is an important note in both modes (more in the mode of D, but also in the mode of E).

I have an 14th century estampie floating around in my head that's ma- I mean Ioni- oops. White keys, hovers around C

Again, C is the "repercusa" (tenor note, dominant, salmodictone, whatever you call it) of the Phrygian mode.

I'm no longer part of the early music scene professionally. Something I always thought was funny is the tendency to asssume theories come ahead of time and then musicians conform to them. Did you know? Polyphony wasn't invented until someone talked about it. Up until the 10th century people just didn't know how to play more than one note at a time or harmonise. Or vibrato. Someone bitches about it in a treatise or letter so....it wasn't done? (cough)

`````
enough.
Listen to this. Isn't it divine? Early Renaissance. Tastes may indeed change but music does not "progress" in the manner in which we were taught.

Treaties usually come (are written) way after the established practice. BTW... You don't need to evangelize modal music to me. I'm already a fan

[jancivil]

I also hate it when people use abbreviations and assume everybody else knows what they're talking about.

If you mean me with “FZ”, I didn’t assume that and frankly don’t give a fvck.

and if so, there’s plenty of context here* for the interested, which if that’s 0.5% of us is more than fine with me. By the time I go tangential the question has been sorted.

*: albeit I may not have been in the thread I thought I was. I’m not worried tho

[jancivil]

“Locrian",

Does anybody actually use it?

I used to do Super- or Hyper-Locrian a lot. too much of the time probably.
A Bb C Db Eb F G
also stick F# in there, call it Gb descending

Locrian itself was probably not used before say Debussy, if he even did.

[EdwardGivens]

If it "hovers around A", did it occur to you that A is the "repercusa" (tenor note, dominant, salmodic tone, whatever you call it) of the Dorian Mode?

Not in this case.

Again, C is the "repercusa" (tenor note, dominant, salmodictone, whatever you call it) of the Phrygian mode.

Again, not in this case.
Both pieces are medieval, not written in one of the 4 church modes. They are secular. So "Psalmadic" or recitation tones don't really apply, do they?

[EdwardGivens]

at 12:30 a piece by the blind composer Landini. Masterful counterpoint and word painting.
More or less - live life as best you can youngsters! for soon enough it will fa---------------de away....