Modal Harmony vid series

[JumpingJackFlash]

There is probably no "right" or "wrong" answers here. Both examples display elements of modality and elements of tonality without being 100% one or the other.

The second example (which interestingly doesn't seem to have been discussed on here as much) contains typical tonal features with almost textbook cadences (with secondary dominants) that unequivocally define a key (though the final cadence is more ambiguous).

The first example of the other hand... The consensus here seems to be that it's in A minor. Although the middle of the setting is fairly tonal in character, I would argue that a Phrygian interpretation makes more sense for the chorale as a whole.

The first cadence is a very typically Phrygian figure, with the soprano moving from D up to E and the bass from F down to E. This compound sixth moving to an octave in contrary motion was a common modal closing formula. This went back a long way, before the rise of tonality. Similarly with the penultimate cadence, another Phrygian fingerprint. We might hear it today as a cadence in A minor, but this was certainly not always so.

The final cadence perhaps sounds the most "A minor"ish to us, but again, this is actually another Phrygian characteristic; scale degrees 6-5 (here in the tenor) over iv-I in the bass. See the work of Seth J. Coluzzi for further details.

Many writers have described the difficulties of hearing modally, particularly regarding the Phrygian mode. However I do believe one can learn to appreciate it from such a standpoint and that in doing so, one can get a better understanding of the piece.

What do you mean? The G# appears in the tenor in the second bar, and also in the flutes part.

We're talking about the first example, right?
No G#s there until the recorders supply one at the first cadence

[fmr]

What do you mean? The G# appears in the tenor in the second bar, and also in the flutes part.

We're talking about the first example, right?
No G#s there until the recorders supply one at the first cadence

Yes, the first example. I see what you mean - in fact, it was the flutes that come first with the G#, but it enough, IMO. In a pure E modal piece, there would be no reason for a G#, unless it was modulating (and we would have to be in "musica ficta", and in an "end of phrase" cadence). As I said, the whole is ambivalent. Bach was more faithful to the original here, which means that the chorale sounds less strongly tonal (and it helps to create the "melancholic spirit" the text suggests) while he decidedly got away from any resemblances of modality in the second example. But I still stand for the whole being tonal in this first example, even if not "strongly tonal". In the XVIIth century, with hundreds of years of modal tradition behind, people would not listen to this the same way, that's for sure.

If something, the piece shows how harmonizing it, even if trying not to escape from the modal universe, easily creates tonal resemblances in our ear - it's the tradition we come from, it's unavoidable. It's enough to just create a V - I progression.

[jancivil]

After playing it (I wasn't around a keyboard) I agree with the A tonal center,
Upon reflection I think the final cadences in both settings could be the biggest clue to it all. They are functionally identical [...] In both examples the closing point of the text happens on iii —> I6, with the final measure containing a plagal motion prolonging the I chord: I6 —> iv —> I. The use of a plagal extension in a setting of a modal melody paired with such a heavy religious text is surely no coincidence, and the fact that both settings end on chords whose roots match the finalis of the Phrygian melody (E and F#) has to say something about how much influence the modal melody had...

I understand enough to recognize Bach's intent there but when we take it to the point of Roman numbers I don't buy this,...
This is probably where my music history class was going when I got kicked out.

This chorale "Herzlich Tut Mich Verlangen" seems to be or has been very popular in Germany, apparently...

That said: The melody is not purely modal (as it happens frequently with the chorale melodies) but also not yet tonal. Being written in the transition period, it has elements of both universes. Bach treatment, however, ir firmly tonal, IMO, and although he respects the melody (cantus firmus) as any polyphonic composer of the Renaissance would do, the harmonization carries the melody into tonal teritory, although sometimes the harmonies had to be a little twisted (that's why Bach harmonies sometimes sound a little strange - and they sounded even more strange to his contemporaries).

This seems right to me.

[jancivil]

There is probably no "right" or "wrong" answers here.
[...]
The consensus here seems to be that [the first example is] in A minor. Although the middle of the setting is fairly tonal in character, I would argue that a Phrygian interpretation makes more sense for the chorale as a whole.

The first cadence is a very typically Phrygian figure, with the soprano moving from D up to E and the bass from F down to E. This compound sixth moving to an octave in contrary motion was a common modal closing formula. This went back a long way, before the rise of tonality. Similarly with the penultimate cadence, another Phrygian fingerprint. We might hear it today as a cadence in A minor, but this was certainly not always so.

The final cadence perhaps sounds the most "A minor"ish to us, but again, this is actually another Phrygian characteristic; scale degrees 6-5 (here in the tenor) over iv-I in the bass.

Many writers have described the difficulties of hearing modally, particularly regarding the Phrygian mode. However I do believe one can learn to appreciate it from such a standpoint and that in doing so, one can get a better understanding of the piece.

What do you mean? The G# appears in the tenor in the second bar, and also in the flutes part.

We're talking about the first example, right?
No G#s there until the recorders supply one at the first cadence

I recognize all this F-E etc by sight, and understand the arguments but once it's harmonized (per se, as my first sentence in reply indicates) that's all out the window. So it is interesting as a music history matter, but I'm just a musician and there is no Phrygian for me, as E just lacks the gravity for to orbit around it.

[JumpingJackFlash]

If something, the piece shows how harmonizing it, even if trying not to escape from the modal universe, easily creates tonal resemblances in our ear - it's the tradition we come from, it's unavoidable. It's enough to just create a V - I progression.

Perhaps that's the point (I can't remember now, I'm probably just guilty of going off on a tangent I happen to be interested in!).

To modern ears at least, harmony and modality don't mix well. Harmony tends to destroy a mode - that is, people will hear it tonally today regardless (like we all said in the early pages).

[jancivil]

I found this far more interesting than my Music History course (Honors curric., meaning kind of geared towards careers in academia seemed like to me)!
fmr noted that 18th c. people had hundreds of years with that Church Music while I had only the two trimesters, which was dead dry and too much, too soon for me. We'd not got to Bach and we'd done 2/3rds of the course?

So I think you guys writing here will bring some richness to the experience of Bach even as I'm not likely to be moved from "JS Bach Harmonized = Not Modal".
I should note that I have found numerous examples of the time of or shortly after JS Bach that did insist on the "Modal Compositional..." aspect, not just the very recent Schenkerian-justified trend in dissertations. But a fascinating read, which is stuff I would not see elsewhere.

[jancivil]

I hate to say this, as I really am an advocate of learning music theory and educating yourself, but it just seems dogmatic to say "modes come from pre tonal music and therefore can never be invoked in a tonal context ever." Language exists for communication, and if the concept of modes is a useful shorthand for "a scale with the same notes as would make up Phrygian mode," I don't see an issue. Is anyone really writing Renaissance style counterpoint?

Fact 4: What jazz people call modes are just mnemonics of sequences of notes whose only relation with the modes are the fact they share the same notes. C Major and A minor, BTW, also share the same notes. By using such terminology to designate completely different things, people are simply creating a mess that leads to such abominations as "modal harmony" and things like that. Refusing to understand that modes have nothing to do with their practice is persisting in the error, and will no lead to anything positive.

full circle:
Wait, so when an Indian musician writes a song using a "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's a mode, but when a pop musician writes a song using the same "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's just a "mnemonic of a sequence of notes" as soon as he layers chords or an independent bassline on it?

If the pop musician layers chords on it that ruin the mode, calling it that mode is probably not useful.

If JS Bach harmonizes that one, afaic it's not Phrygian mode.

[zethus909]

circle:
Wait, so when an Indian musician writes a song using a "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's a mode, but when a pop musician writes a song using the same "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's just a "mnemonic of a sequence of notes" as soon as he layers chords or an independent bassline on it?

the answer is: it's irrelevant. because they are both explanations, and explanations are after the fact . consequently , whether you choose to explain it this way or that way, the music is unchanged . the music does not DEPEND on the explanation.

[JumpingJackFlash]

the answer is: it's irrelevant. because they are both explanations, and explanations are after the fact . consequently , whether you choose to explain it this way or that way, the music is unchanged . the music does not DEPEND on the explanation.

Does it not help you to understand how people will hear the music?

You might think you're writing iv-vii-I in the Phrygian mode, but if almost everyone is going to hear that as i-iv-V in A minor, who is right?

[jancivil]

full circle:

Wait, so when an Indian musician writes a song using a "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's a mode, but when a pop musician writes a song using the same "1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7" sequence of notes, it's just a "mnemonic of a sequence of notes" as soon as he layers chords or an independent bassline on it?

the answer is: it's irrelevant. because they are both explanations, and explanations are after the fact . consequently , whether you choose to explain it this way or that way, the music is unchanged . the music does not DEPEND on the explanation.

How is it you figure you know "the answer"? All that is is a disposition, your arrogant, ignorant disposition.

The Indian Classical Musician starts to compose a raga based in a Thaat {Hindustani} or Melakarta (or janya raga, child of that Mela) {Carnatic}.
Bhairavi Thaat corresponds to Phrygian (in the Hindustani stylee). So, it's not an explanation after the fact, it's the material before the fact. In every ICM recording I could show you, the fact of the drone and the raga's relationship with the drone* is a fact, it is prescribed in the first place, and we know from the "theory" what to say about it in order to teach it. (*: the mode's relationship with '1', which may be obliterated by chords)

When JS Bach chose that old hymn to create new versions of, he was consciously choosing a type of melody that was known as Phrygian, and as we have had elucidated by JJF, stringtapper and fmr just now, the feel of that mode will have matched the feeling of the words and he made musical choices subsequently. I'm not changing the music talking about it, but these are two different actions.

SO, what music is unchanged? There is no music you're talking about. So, you're just asserting an abstraction dogmatically. You've managed to form dogma (out of your posturing, clueless, thought-free statements)! Nice. That's probably the opposite of the pose you want to strike here, but you are demonstrably faking it anyway.

[jancivil]

Sorry, I have to acknowledge one raga's relationship with the drone where in theory, the drone is not <1>, it is at a minor third below. Nonetheless the typical explanation is 'major pentatonic' from that 6 with the inclusion of a minor 3rd'; but scalarwise, ie the Thaat is given (from D): D Eb F G# B C# (drone on B).

talk about a pet subject. But the theoretical problem has everything to do with the (weird) manifestations of it.



Khan is not using a drone (so's I can tell on this tiny thing) but just as good he's droning on on his Sa string which is not really working as 1.

This is same raga but quite different:



drone very clear here

[zethus909]

Does it not help you to understand how people will hear the music?

what? I don't understand this statement.

People don't need to have an abstract formulaic "listening guide/ plan" in order to hear music. Likewise, You dont need to have a mental picture of how the building plan (archetectural blueprints) of a building looks in order to stand inside a building, and be sheltered by the building.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Does it not help you to understand how people will hear the music?

what? I don't understand this statement.

People don't need to have an abstract formulaic "listening guide/ plan" in order to hear music.

But people accustomed to certain sounds do tend to hear a certain way. Like many things, this can be explained with theory and that theory can inform practice.

[zethus909]

Does it not help you to understand how people will hear the music?

what? I don't understand this statement.

People don't need to have an abstract formulaic "listening guide/ plan" in order to hear music.

But people accustomed to certain sounds do tend to hear a certain way. Like many things, this can be explained with theory and that theory can inform practice.

yes it can. and DOES, like I said it is a process of "doing", then thinking /reflecting /analyzing , then "doing". but the "doing" does not require reflecting. theory looks at what "is", then it attempts to explain. and it must ALWAYS, unanimously be understood to be an explanation, and NEVER an instruction. once it becomes an instruction, all "doing" is fundamentally compromised

[MadBrain]

Irl, the problem with "destroying the mode" exists in Mixolydian, Dorian and Lydian, but not in Phrygian:

- G Mixolydian: Problem #1: If you want a nice dominant on V, you're introducing the D major chord with its F#. The result is that your song is barely any different from a G major song with borrowed chords F and Dm. (note: This is not at all a bad thing and there are TONS of music composed this way!) One way to avoid this is to use D11 as a dominant chord instead.
Problem #2: If you use the 7th on G7, then you also have the problem that you're already modulating to C major... but the blues progression manages to deal with this problem somehow.

- F Lydian: This has the problem that just about half of your potential chords modulate to C major or A minor (G7, Bm7b5) and is probably the least popular one because of this. Some composers can somehow make it work anyways (Hitoshi Sakimoto comes to mind - btw if anyone can tell me how Sakimoto's style works, I will be VERY happy to learn!).

- D Dorian: If you add the A7 chord on the dominant (with C#) to have nice cadences, then it basically turns into D minor melodic... borrowing the Bb chord from minor to have a nice strong pre-dominant further turns this mode into D minor with a G major borrowed chord. (still relatively popular in spite of this)

- E Phrygian: This one lets you use not only 1, but 2 different dominants! (B7 and F - F works really well as a dominant because it's basically the tritonic substitution of B). Adding in the D# to get your B7 chord doesn't work against the mode's characteristic note F, so it's no problem here, and you can even use B7b5 to add it on top. Even Bm7b5 leads you back to your root Em chord. So this one is actually practically as stable as the minor and major scales harmonically. I think the reason why it's not used in classical music that much at all is just that it doesn't fit stylistically (and is intrinsically somewhat dissonant).

In another order of ideas, I'm starting to think that the best way to refer to the way pop composers use modes as just a collection of pitches, without a full modal system, is to call them what they are when doing that: scales. Which would give us the appellations Dorian scale, Mixolydian scale, Lydian scale and Phrygian scale. And this has the advantage of separating them from the historical modes: Dorian mode, Phrygian mode, Lydian mode and Mixolydian mode. I think it's a justifiable terminology: the Mixolydian scale is, after all, a scale based on the pitches of the Mixolydian mode.

Does this make sense?