Your thoughts on modes

[ghettosynth]

...

[JumpingJackFlash]

I see we're off again!

fmr is correct; that article is a load of rubbish.
What's popular isn't always right. Repeating mistakes doesn't somehow correct them, it's just perpetuating ignorance.

Modes and keys are completely different and separate things; one is not a "subset" of the other. Various posts have gone into detail on numerous other threads.

For anyone interested, my brief post detailing some of the history of the modes can still be read on this thread.

[ghettosynth]

...

[JumpingJackFlash]

Modes and keys are completely different and separate things; one is not a "subset" of the other.

Nobody said that they were.

Good, so I presume you agree that statements from the above article like:
"we get the following modes, now in their respective keys"
and
"these modes can then be transposed up and down to play them in different keys".

Are meaningless nonsense?

Cause you're either in a mode or a key, you can't be in both at the same time.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Duplicated post

[MadBrain]

Good, so I presume you agree that statements from the above article like:
"we get the following modes, now in their respective keys"
and
"these modes can then be transposed up and down to play them in different keys".

Are meaningless nonsense?

Cause you're either in a mode or a key, you can't be in both at the same time.

Depends on your definition of "key". Here "key" is synonymous with "root note" (so that E major and E minor are in the same "key" of E), and in that context these statements are NOT meaningless: you can play the mixolydian mode/scale/whatever-you-call-it in the "key" of E (which gives E F# G# A B C# D, with E being the tonic/root note). I'm pretty sure that's the definition of "key" that is being used here.

If you use the term "key" for "musical key signature that appears on a music sheet", then the meaning is much more confused yes, but this is obviously not the meaning used here, and you're uselessly derailing the post by pretending it is.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Here "key" is synonymous with "root note"

And that's exactly where people are going wrong.
Key is much more than just a "root note", just as "mode" is for that matter (I suspect you mean "tonic" rather than "root note" anyway). Otherwise the term is so broad as to be meaningless.

If they mean that a mode (or scale) can be transposed to start on any note, then saying it like that would be an awful lot simpler (and more accurate) that what they do say.

[MadBrain]

EDIT

Here "key" is synonymous with "root note"

And that's exactly where people are going wrong.
Key is much more than just a "root note", just as "mode" is for that matter (I suspect you mean "tonic" rather than "root note" anyway). Otherwise the term is so broad as to be meaningless.

If they mean that a mode (or scale) can be transposed to start on any note, then saying it like that would be an awful lot simpler (and more accurate) that what they do say.

Of course I mean "tonic" here. I'm *pretty sure* it's synonymous with "root note".

And yeah I'm saying that it can be transposed to start on any note. More precisely, I'm saying that you can transpose it to get any note as your *tonic* (since the starting note and "tonic" are always the same, in this musical context).

Okay, so aside from the terminological nitpicking here, tell me what is a "key", other than a combination of a "root note" and a "scale/mode/etc-ad-nauseum"?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Okay, so aside from the terminological nitpicking here, tell me what is a "key", other than a combination of a "root note" and a "scale/mode/etc-ad-nauseum"?

Well you've just added something there yourself!
You started saying "key" was synonymous with "root note" (or tonic), and you've already added that the scale or mode used is also important. And it is.

The intervalic species (as we might call it) of the major scale for example is TTSTTTS where S is a semitone (half-step), and T is a whole tone (two semitones). If you change that, it becomes something different.

Even the uneducated know that C major and C minor are not equivalent things, neither is C Dorian and C Mixolydian.

Of course I mean "tonic" here. I'm *pretty sure* it's synonymous with "root note".

Actually, no it's not.
"Tonic" is the first note of the scale, but "root" is the lowest note of a chord when the notes are arranged so there is a third between each one. In C major for example, the tonic is always C, but the "root" changes depending on what chord is played.

[MadBrain]

Okay, so aside from the terminological nitpicking here, tell me what is a "key", other than a combination of a "root note" and a "scale/mode/etc-ad-nauseum"?

Well you've just added something there yourself!
You started saying "key" was synonymous with "root note" (or tonic), and you've already added that the scale or mode used is also important. And it is.

The intervalic species (as we might call it) of the major scale for example is TTSTTTS where S is a semitone (half-step), and T is a whole tone (two semitones). If you change that, it becomes something different.

Alright. The article uses the word "key" where it should be using the term "tonality". I still think that's just a terminological issue.

Even the uneducated know that C major and C minor are not equivalent things, neither is C Dorian and C Mixolydian.

Everybody agrees on that.

Of course I mean "tonic" here. I'm *pretty sure* it's synonymous with "root note".

Actually, no it's not.
"Tonic" is the first note of the scale, but "root" is the lowest note of a chord when the notes are arranged so there is a third between each one. In C major for example, the tonic is always C, but the "root" changes depending on what chord is played.

So one is for scales and the other for chords? Fair enough.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Alright. The article uses the word "key" where it should be using the term "tonality". I still think that's just a terminological issue.

No, that would be equally incorrect.
As I said before, modes (modality) and keys (tonality) are different and separate things, they should not be confused.

Even the uneducated know that C major and C minor are not equivalent things, neither is C Dorian and C Mixolydian.

Everybody agrees on that.

Except when you said that "key is synonymous with root note".

[datroof]

My goodness, children, I'm glad I already know music theory because threads like these would scare me away from learning it. This Music Theory forum is seriously the biggest bummer on KVR. I propose it be renamed "Territorial Pissings & Endless Semantic Argumentation" to more accurately reflect its content. Talk about noise to signal ratio...

So you're saying that arguments about meanings is empty, noise. Tough shit for you, be somewhere else.

Your hostile response containing an expletive proves my point precisely, thanks! I was pointing out that the vibe in the Music Theory forum was off-putting at best to a person such as myself familiar with theory. I can't imagine beginners wading through the vitriol.

I actually do want to be in the Music Theory forum, thank you very much. Arguments about meaning are the signal, it's the angry tone and name calling that are the noise.

Yeah, I totally agree. The endless, childish mud-wrestling has basically made the theory forums unusable for adults. It drives a lot of people away, which is too bad.

[MadBrain]

Alright. The article uses the word "key" where it should be using the term "tonality". I still think that's just a terminological issue.

No, that would be equally incorrect.
As I said before, modes (modality) and keys (tonality) are different and separate things, they should not be confused.

STOP DOING THIS. You know exactly what I meant by "tonality", and you're obviously trying to derail this argument in pointless terminological directions on purpose.

Even the uneducated know that C major and C minor are not equivalent things, neither is C Dorian and C Mixolydian.

Everybody agrees on that.

Except when you said that "key is synonymous with root note".

You know exactly what I meant when I said it - that sometimes the word "key" is used to refer to the tonic, regardless of the "intervalic species" involved. Now you're disingeniously trying to pretend that I meant that "all intervalic species are the same" for the sake of making this ridiculous 8 page thread into a 40 page thread.

[jancivil]

Now, let's get specific. Parent describes a set of six diatonic scales and labels the set as "modes." These are not the "same" scales.

This is where the whole exercise becomes such a clusterfuck. You brought in this idiot article which you're now not advocating for, but it muddied the waters by taking us backwards to a confounding of these things which are known to us as modes, that originally were modes qua mode, into basically the major scale. Someone thinks all there is to making 'E Phrygian' is to start C major on E.

modes = {major, natural minor, "phrygian", "mixolydian", "dorian", "lydian" }

Jan says, no, these are scales.

I said the answer to that completely misleading question was 'you call them scales'. It's wrong to even answer that, here it was a leading question and there is no meaningful answer.

I say that a person in the 'chord scales' school of thought should not confuse them with 'modes'. I have said umpteen times in these discussions that these chord scales are applying useless names to one scale. "You do D dorian over ii7 in C major. You do G mixolydian over V7 in C major." You don't, you do C MAJOR, the Dm7 of G7 chord changes not one thing about this fact. I have said the same thing in different words subsequently.
SO:

ok
scales = {major, natural minor, "phrygian", "mixolydian", "dorian", "lydian" }

That's fine, I buy it completely, but, the parent wants to know what he should label this unique set, because there are more scales than that, even in pop music, right?

Are these six unique things? THEY ARE WHEN THEY ARE MODES. If all of these have the same Key Signature, they are not unique as scales. These are modes.

Except for 'major', which is not a mode in the same terms as 'phrygian'.

Let me be sure there is no ambiguity in my statement. When people bring in 'chord scales' consisting of these six, or seven modes as named, or you do 'they just want to use these as scales', we are talking about a bunch of nothing. If OTOH there is a synthetic aka artifical scale that describes extensions in jazz, it makes sense to say chord scales. I'm fully aware that many people think it's great, but I have said over and over again that calling Dorian just because the harmony is ii is more verbosity and thought than is at all necessary.

'because there are more scales than that' looks like a non-sequitur. The set confounds 'major' and 'natural minor' with four modes. The diatonic paradigm gives those two scales in a given major key. The modes do not belong to key like that. So this 'Parent's question' is formed out of a fundamental mistake anyway.

[jancivil]

It drives a lot of people away, which is too bad.

Check again the view count. Your assumption is just your assumption and your post is just such irony since your contribution is limited to coming in to toss insults.