Modal Harmony vid series

[zethus909]

You are extrapolating from the one very basic fact that their intervals are the same to conclude that that must mean they are the same thing. It doesn't, and they're not.

that's not at all what I am saying and ut seems u r missing the point I am making. they don't AT ALL mean the same thing. to humans, they can interpret the same physical intervals in multiple different ways. that's the whole point I am trying to make . the other point is that in reality, those intervals never change, just the subjective perception of what they mean changes. this a completely abstract intangible phenomenon .

with regards to B major being the must robust sonically idk, but regarding it being the best for fingering I haven't worked with that key enough but I will try using it more often and see, some keys are just easier to play than others or they will end up yielding interesting results like Gb/F# since it uses all the black keys . but the "sound" of Gb also has an interesting aspect to it.

[jancivil]

Just for any unfortunate that clicked on page 16 or some other spot where zethus provides a faucet of nonsense: Modes, let's take 7 modes of the 7 white key notes, have the same intervals only ordered differently YES. The entire point of discussing modes is that they are modes, ie., they are ordered differently. And this new ordering, based in the choice of note 1, means that the new relationship to that note 1 which I'll call Tonic results in a new feeling. F Lydian does not feel like E Phrygian.

Whether you call that subjective or whatever-the-f**k, means nothing. A person at pains to toss this at us is just engaged in verbal masturbation. There is no subjective vs objective reality, 'the intervals never change' is utterly pointless. The entire point is that the modality is a series of changes; once this is manifested, the changes are real. The disagreement with this is beyond pointless, if you actually believe that shite you're an idiot or insane. The argument now boils down to this Ideal in the abstract which you say is real vs. subjective perception which must be an intangible abstraction. It is utter nonsense, you force terms - "abstract" - to mean two opposite things. To make matters worse you have perception as intangible. You chase your tail and catch it and do it again, now you're in a knot.

I should never have said "laughably inept". That's me failing to describe the problem out of frustration. Inept is like me as a sailor, unable by lack of talent to work well enough with knots to make the gig. You can't be inept until you try; you aren't trying to do anything but avoid the thing but make that seem grand talking around it. You can't avoid it, you're deluding yourself completely.
And if I laughed it was mirthless and frustrated, and flat.

[zethus909]

but knowing too much theory, as i stated before can actually be bad for your creativity. and make you worse at making music. because it makes you a robot, incapable of producing anything before thinking about it.

This is probably the most common misconception of music theory held by people who haven't studied it or refuse to study it.

If you have to actively think about a theoretical concept before you play it or write it then you haven't actually learned that concept.

"Learning" music theory is about internalizing musical concepts and materials by connecting the intellectual understanding of them with the aural and physical experience of them. Charlie Parker and John Coltrane couldn't have played all of those notes over all of those chord changes at such speed if they were having to think through every chord tone, passing tone, or chromatic embellishment as they were playing them. That doesn't mean they didn't study the theory of those things intensively. They did. And they internalized the sounds and how it felt to play those sounds on their instruments.

It seems as if certain people have the idea in their head that the de facto process of studying music theory is sitting with a music theory text and just reading it like a novel. I don't know any music educator who would prescribe that method. You want to be in front of an instrument, hearing the things that you're reading.

The whole sentiment of "just feeeeel it maaaaaan" is nice and romantic, but is, ultimately, an anti-intellectual endeavor.

oh give me a break, stop the melodramatics. playing music for the sake of it is "anti intellectual", what are you even smoking. lol. thanks for pointing me towards that funny valentine song though, i really like the chet baker version of it. and i like some of his other songs too. i like that laid back, kind of dreery style of jazz that he plays. also really like the drumming at the start of this show....it's using brushes and it sounds awesome.

[zethus909]

look the whole thing started because someone asked what "modal harmony" is, so I explained what it is. in a straightforward way. modal harmony is when you restrict your self to only using the notes available in the classic modal intervals (i also linked like 5 sites that say the same thing)...ie. diatonic notes, to make your harmony. then someone shouted that there is no such thing as modal harmony.

just because modes are a "melodic" functioning thing, and not harmonic, doesn tmean you cant "make" harmonies using the notes of modes. if you play two notes over top eachother, THAT is harmony. and you CAN choose to use only the notes from the modes, ie. no major 7th in a minor mode, etc. to make harmonies with. it's got nothing to do with whether "modes" purpose is melodic, it's irrelevant. not to the actual process of using those notes to make harmonies. it's maybe "incorrect" to use the term "modal harmony", because it's a misnomer, but functionally it is possible and it makes sense, from a song writing perspective. not from a "is it correct in terms of the entire history of music" perspective.

yea it's important to be correct, but it's also important, to not discourage someone from making music, and thats how it can make alot of people feel when they are excited like in the at other thread, where he made a site, and he is very positive and optimistic that he can make something that can help people, but you tell him "you should just quit", because there are some minor issues with the system he is using. thats stupid. discouraging anyone from exploring music or trying to learn new things, and working with it, in whatever capacity is stupid. and discouraging people in general from taking on new challenges is also stupid. and that is way more detrimental, then someone getting some textbook definitions wrong.

regarless of what you may think, i have a good understanding of music theory, the important principles. i do not use the same language as you do, but i guarantee i probably understand alot the actual principles of music alot better than you, think. thats what is good about music, you dont have to take some test about what an augmented 5th is, you can just start making it. and if you DID have to take a test like that, do you realize how much shittier our world would be. there would like no good music. because no one with actual creative minds would try. only boring people, who think that everything has to have some sort of technical guide on how to do things would make music.

it would be all completely regimental, "you cant use those notes for your harmony because...theyre from modes only", you cant this you cant that. yes YOU CAN. because music, and sound exists whether you exist or not.

[Gamma-UT]

I'll try to explain you (again) why that's incorrect:
1. The piano keyboard is not an invention that appeared with the piano. There were keyboard instruments way before the piano.

I don't see where anyone claimed the piano was the first keyboard instrument. The issue at hand was why the keyboard on a piano would seem to favour a C Major scale if such a scale was a late invention. The answer is: it isn't. It is simply that practice and written theory diverged.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The organ is a relatively old musical instrument, dating from the time of Ctesibius of Alexandria (285–222 BC), who invented the water organ. It was played throughout the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman world, particularly during races and games. During the early medieval period it spread from the Byzantine Empire, where it continued to be used in secular (non-religious) and imperial court music, to Western Europe, where it gradually assumed a prominent place in the liturgy of the Catholic Church."

This organ almost certainly did not have a keyboard that resembled that of a piano. It would have most likely been tuned somewhat differently, given that the ancient Greek modes have only a passing resemblance to modern scales. And it had way fewer keys. However, the Byzantine connection is probably pertinent as that seems to be the source of the organ technology that made it into cathedrals during the latter half of the first millennium CE.

The Byzantine enharmonic scale is pretty much a Major scale (there are others in the Byzantine system that, similar to the ancient Greek modes, selectively flatten and sharpen some of the pitches). What Hucbald saw in the organs available probably stems from this enharmonic scale:

Hucbald...describes in De Harmonica institutione the series of notes to which instruments are tuned, the equivalent of:

c d e f g a h c' d' e' f' g' a' h' [etc] [Hucbald actually uses the letters A-P, which he borrowed from Boethius but the tone-semitone sequence is one that matches the intervals of the modern C major scale]

This is the organ scale. by no means does it imply that these or any instruments were being used in church either in organum or to accompany the eight psalm tones...In practice, Hucbald says, the symnemmenon or 'added note' between the other tetrachords (Bb or 'B' [ie not H]) is 'unlikely to be found on the hydraulic or other instruments'. Most will therefore be unable to play the liturgical melodies that have both H and B...

From "The Organ in Western Culture, 750-1250" by Peter Williams.

What likely happened is that as the instruments were adapted from Byzantine practice they started to spawn the additional notes needed to reflect actual western practice as, thanks in part to Hucbald's creation of eight modes that are quite different to the Byzantine octoechoi, the musical forms diverged. The first added note would presumably have been the Bb. Spinets and virginals wound up with the same fingering as organs, evolving into the piano.

[fmr]

Hucbald...describes in De Harmonica institutione the series of notes to which instruments are tuned, the equivalent of:

c d e f g a h c' d' e' f' g' a' h' [etc] [Hucbald actually uses the letters A-P, which he borrowed from Boethius but the tone-semitone sequence is one that matches the intervals of the modern C major scale]

This is the organ scale. by no means does it imply that these or any instruments were being used in church either in organum or to accompany the eight psalm tones...In practice, Hucbald says, the symnemmenon or 'added note' between the other tetrachords (Bb or 'B' [ie not H]) is 'unlikely to be found on the hydraulic or other instruments'. Most will therefore be unable to play the liturgical melodies that have both H and B...

From "The Organ in Western Culture, 750-1250" by Peter Williams.

What likely happened is that as the instruments were adapted from Byzantine practice they started to spawn the additional notes needed to reflect actual western practice as, thanks in part to Hucbald's creation of eight modes that are quite different to the Byzantine octoechoi, the musical forms diverged. The first added note would presumably have been the Bb. Spinets and virginals wound up with the same fingering as organs, evolving into the piano.

OK, you reasearched more, and explained it better and with more documentation, but in the end you reached the same conclusion: WHEN the organ got a keyboard, it started with the natural notes used in the modes, and the other notes were addded later, as alterations (therefore, these other notes became the black keys).

What is strange to me is why do you give Hucbald credits for the creation of the modes. I disagree. The modes, most certainly, were something created IN PRACTICE along several centuries, and come from the Byzantine tradition carried over to Europe. The first recollection was ordered by St. Ambrose (therefore its called Ambrosian Chant), who lived from 340 to 397, therefore, quite older than Hucbald. This chants, as far as we know, didn't conform to the later modal system, which means that between them and the Gregorian Chant, which was compiled under the orders of St. Gregory in the VIth century, the modes changed. The actual church modes may diverge from the byzantine, but Hucbald just transcribed to his book what was being used in practice. BTW: According to the Wikipedia, "Musica Enchiriadis" authorship is in dispute.

Regarding the other keyboard instruments, the clavichord predates both the spinet and the virginal (not that it matters much).

[Gamma-UT]

BTW: According to the Wikipedia, "Musica Enchiriadis" authorship is in dispute.

And your point is...?

And seriously, Wikipedia? For someone who affects the trappings of musical scholar you go running to that an awful lot.

[fmr]

And seriously, Wikipedia? For someone who affects the trappings of musical scholar you go running to that an awful lot.

Because it's faster, but I've been quoting several other sources too. I would better quote Britannica or something (for online sources), but I don't have a subscription, and looking in the books (I only own a few, I would have to go to a library) takes much longer. But you're right - I always get the Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. It's mainly to check dates and facts, nothing else.

[Gamma-UT]

And seriously, Wikipedia? For someone who affects the trappings of musical scholar you go running to that an awful lot.

Because it's faster. I would better quote Britannica or something, but I don't have a subscription, and looking in the books (I only own a few, I would have to go to a library) takes much longer. But you're right - I always get the Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. It's mainly to check dates and facts, nothing else.

Why is Britannica better in this case? You keep coming back to me about things that you dispute in an area that's been subject to re-analysis many times over in recent years - yet citing aggregated sources without a clear indication of the provenance of the 'facts' they provide.

[Gamma-UT]

This chants, as far as we know, didn't conform to the later modal system, which means that between them and the Gregorian Chant, which was compiled under the orders of St. Gregory in the VIth century, the modes changed.

No shit, Sherlock.

[fmr]

Why is Britannica better in this case? You keep coming back to me about things that you dispute in an area that's been subject to re-analysis many times over in recent years - yet citing aggregated sources without a clear indication of the provenance of the 'facts' they provide.

If you have better suggestions for online sources to give people here, by all means, enlighten me. I am humble enough to accept suggestions from others, even if they seem arrogant like you.

And I am not coming back "to you". I am coming back to anybody who is reading this. Who do you think you are?

[fmr]

This chants, as far as we know, didn't conform to the later modal system, which means that between them and the Gregorian Chant, which was compiled under the orders of St. Gregory in the VIth century, the modes changed.

No shit, Sherlock.

It was you who said Hucbald created the modes, not me

"...the additional notes needed to reflect actual western practice as, thanks in part to Hucbald's creation of eight modes that are quite different to the Byzantine octoechoi..."

[Gamma-UT]

It was you who said Hucbald created the modes, not me

Formulated is probably a better choice of words but your bolding indicates a misunderstanding of the point in the first place – which was that the modes formalised by Hucbald, using work from Boethius somewhat earlier, were quite different to the Byzantine modes. We're talking about a period during which the eastern and western Christian churches were separating. Those earlier chants date back to the time of the common church backed by Constantine.

[Gamma-UT]

And I am not coming back "to you". I am coming back to anybody who is reading this. Who do you think you are?

Forgive me, when you write arguing that a work called Musica enchiriadis wasn't written by Hucbald in response to a post I made partially quoting from the different and earlier De harmonica institutione (which is accepted as being Hucbald's), it's easy to make the assumption that it's a correction aimed at me as opposed to an irrelevant detail that serves no apparent purpose.

[fmr]

It was you who said Hucbald created the modes, not me

Formulated is probably a better choice of words but your bolding indicates a misunderstanding of the point in the first place – which was that the modes formalised by Hucbald, using work from Boethius somewhat earlier, were quite different to the Byzantine modes. We're talking about a period during which the eastern and western Christian churches were separating. Those earlier chants date back to the time of the common church backed by Constantine.

I didn't misundertood anything - I just pointed your "bad choice of words". Anyway, the modes "formulated" by Hucbald were the ones being used already in the Gregorian Chant (which standardization, to be fair, spanned like three centuries, but started hundreds of years before Hucbald).

So.. shit indeed, "Holmes".