question about modes,keys,scales

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

What is the criteria to elevate a mode to a scale?

Neither me nor Knud Jeppesen, a leading expert in 16th century polyphony, would understand this question.

According to Jeppesen’s definition, a scale is a dead abstraction while the mode is the living music arising from it. Thus every scale in use is basically a mode. Some have been dominant to western music, others eastern, but that does not give them any special status as to whether they are modes or not. It would make more sense to ask how to elevate a scale to a mode, and the answer would be that it is a mode when you make music with that scale’s recognizable charateristics. You can make your own modes as well, even non-tonal like Messian’s are to some extent, and they would still be modes in this definition.

[jancivil]

t'was a strange construction to me, with that word elevate. it seems of a piece with the need for a primary source for modes, major key.scales/more familiar rules ok.

[mattrix3]

I'm sorry you are not happy with my choice of words, I'm not a linguist. It appears I'm not a particularly good writer.

...
I said the n mode of actual things, what are you on about?
...

Don't take it personally. I was talking generally about why I felt that there were conventions that I was unaware of. You, yourself pointed out how confusing wiki was for someone who already knew the subject matter. Personally, I don't know enough to see the problem with any of those definitions. If I don't understand something, I put it down to some deficit at my end. I don't know enough about the terms, and what they mean, to know what to disregard.
I don't know where it is appropriate to use the terms. I have found that many terms have been redefined over the ages, Aristoxenus, and probably others before him, defined the octave species Dorian, Lydian etc. but then Hucbald redefined them in the 800's.
Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis", and that as the Church modes were diatonic, then "tonal" terminology applies. Here, I'm just parroting what I have read, I don't understand the difference in usage between the two paradigms.

I apologize if I am reading your posts too superficially. I did not realize that Aeolian and Ionian were coined by Glareanus only shortly (historically speaking) before major/minor became a thing.

... western musicians for whom major/minor music has for some reason been prevalent, ...

Some authors treat the "tonal system" as the pinacle that music has been evolving to. I cannot see why several centuries ago only two 'patterns', from the plethora of possibilities, had become acceptable. What properties did major/minor have that the others lacked or did the others all have something distasteful.

I do understand that music is a historical continuum, but I can't understand why composers who had no rules did not significantly deviate from the norm. Is it just a matter of conditioning? Or is it something to do with the physical properties of the sound?

It is not so much that I want to have rigid rules, just that I want to understand the reasons for what is and what is not. To understand the conventions and terms that people use to explain these reasons.

Seasons greetings all.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis", and that as the Church modes were diatonic, then "tonal" terminology applies. Here, I'm just parroting what I have read, I don't understand the difference in usage between the two paradigms.

Tonality refers to the obsession with the lead tone from the third of the dominant to root of the tonic in major. As chromatism evolved during the baroque era the V-I cadance became a standard that you could achieve even in minor by raising the seventh degree one semitone to get the lead tone (=harmonic minor). It also became a trend to end some pieces in major though you started in minor. In contrast using modes did not allow for isolated deviant chromatics. The idea was to stay within the corresponding scale to emphasize its characteristics. There were many cadences in modal music that were not based on the IV-V-I relationship like in tonal music. Further, moving from 16th century polyphony to the baroque and classical era, the notion of having one melody dominating while everything else, harmonizations and counterpoint, took a supportive role, became prominent. In earlier modal polyphony, e.g. Palestrina, there could be more attempts to balance several melodies within the same piece. Transpositions to other keys became more accepted and frequent as well in tonal music. There is more to the development, but these are some important guiding points.

I do understand that music is a historical continuum, but I can't understand why composers who had no rules did not significantly deviate from the norm.

Who had no rules? 16th century modal composers? Wrong, mate. Just because they did not follow a paradigm of their future does not mean they did not follow any at all. How did you come up with that idea? And how did you come up with the idea that they did follow tonality tho having no rules? Thus 16th polyphony was both rule driven and did indeed deviate from the norms of the tonality of its future. You should take care not to conflate tonal music with diatonical music. Tho the former imply the latter, the latter can exist without the former (e.g. modal music).

[jancivil]

<Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis">
What texts? Isn't this like 'there is more than one definition of Dorian mode'?

That is plain incorrect on the face of it. TribeO has already explained it completely enough so I will just reinforce it. I strongly recommend asking a question over making statements like that.

[Aardman]

Thank you,
So there are 24 keys, but 168 key signatures?
What makes a key major or minor?

Having a bit of troule interpreting. I have seen at least 2 ( & I think 3) definitions of Dorian mode.

Isn't it equally true that given G Ab B C D Eb F that the 4th mode of this is C Harmonic minor? There needs to be some convention for which is the root mode (scale?).

I have not considered how moving things up and down (transposition) affects things yet.

Baby steps.

There are 13 different standard combinations of sharps and flats used as key signatures for 0 - 7 sharps or 0 - 7 flats. Each signature divides a 12 note octave into a discreet series of whole and half steps with the division of two whole steps followed by a half then three whole steps followed by a half.

Depending on where along that line of whole and half steps you want to, for lack of a better term, call “home” or Tonic, that sets the mode you are in. Major, or Ionian being WWHWWWH, Phrygian being HWWWHWW, all other modes being some other starting and ending point.

Dorian would be WHWWWHW

Each mode has distinctive characteristics, Ionian having a major tonic chord, Phrygian and Dorian having a minor tonic chord and Locrean (HWWHWWW) having a diminished tonic chord thus seldom used.

In point of technicality if you use this standard arrangement of whole and half steps there are seven modes, each of which can start on one of 12 scale degrees for a total of 84 possible “keys.”

But it gets more interesting (or complex depending on how you view it). Some keys, such as C# have enharmonic equivalents in that seven sharps for C# major have the same set of whole and half steps as five flats starting on Db.

And don’t get me started on the enharmonic possibilities once you decide to include double flats and double sharps because then you can have keys with MORE than seven sharps and flats.

More interesting to me are the modes that have different arrangements of whole and half steps outside of the two / three grouping. One of my favorites being WWWHWHW, which you will get with a key signature of a single C# if you play from G to G. There are technically 84 different ways to utilize this arrangement of whole and half steps as well.

Then there are the octatonic scales with eight notes to the octave, and other more exotic arrangements.

That’s what I love about music, So many ways to arrange those 12 notes, each of them different and interesting.

[mattrix3]

<Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis">
What texts? Isn't this like 'there is more than one definition of Dorian mode'?

Cleonides, who is supposed to have given a faithful retelling of Astroxenus, defines the Dorian species as running from hypate meson to nete diezeugmenon.
In the diatonic genus this would give a pattern of, starting from the lower note, STTTSTT.
The modern definition of Dorian has a pattern of TSTTTST.

In the church modes, the authentic form of Protus (modernday Dorian)used the scale D E F G A B C, whereas the plagal form of Tetradus used the same scale D E F G A B C, and ambitus. The only difference in these modes was the choice of the Finalis (tonic, if you will) and the Tenor.
I don't know where I read this, but with my understanding at the time, the argument was convincing.

Thank you Tribe, your pointers have been useful to me.

[mattrix3]

Thanks all,
The whole 'flavour' of this thread has been me trying to tie down the terms and definitions and understand their limitations and being told that music is a free spirit and that anything is and was possible.
That keys are not limited to whole and half steps, signatures do not have to indicate keys.

[mattrix3]

And don’t get me started on the enharmonic possibilities once you decide to include double flats and double sharps because then you can have keys with MORE than seven sharps and flats.

I have already been down that rabbit hole, extending the system from Ebbbb to its enharmonic G#### using a very slightly flatted 3/2.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

The whole 'flavour' of this thread has been me trying to tie down the terms and definitions and understand their limitations and being told that music is a free spirit and that anything is and was possible.

Sounds awfully KVRish. Well, anything is and was possible within the technological limits but not without consequences if you wanted a career within music.

[jancivil]

<Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis">
What texts? Isn't this like 'there is more than one definition of Dorian mode'?

Cleonides, who is supposed to have given a faithful retelling of Astroxenus, defines the Dorian species as running from hypate meson to nete diezeugmenon.
In the diatonic genus this would give a pattern of, starting from the lower note, STTTSTT.
The modern definition of Dorian has a pattern of TSTTTST.

In the church modes, the authentic form of Protus (modernday Dorian)used the scale D E F G A B C, whereas the plagal form of Tetradus used the same scale D E F G A B C, and ambitus. The only difference in these modes was the choice of the Finalis (tonic, if you will) and the Tenor.
I don't know where I read this, but with my understanding at the time, the argument was convincing.

Those definitions are quite another matter. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with tonality.
Baffle 'em with bullshit, that's the "flavour" I get from you.

You've confounded ancient Greece with the Church modes, for starters.
Then, modes in this sense just are_not tonality, full stop.

Dominant/tonic, one more time, refers here _strictly_ to harmonic function of tonal music. A V harmony or its equivalent (eg., triad vii or vii7 etc on the leading tone of the key; or a more subtle thing like a bII turned into the dominant by one or another device), to a tonic harmony, I, i, or a substitution (in an incomplete or deceptive cadence, eg., vi in major, VI in minor). Or there are secondary dominants, tonicizing a different scale tone than 1.

"5" does not through itself mean "the Dominant harmony/chord" shall be formed.

Why are you copy/pasting these fancy words from Ancient Greek intonation theory? You mean semitone and tone. If you knew the terms for real, we wouldn't be seeing that.
In the specific Aristoxenus diatonic we have: "Mese", 1:1 or 0 at bottom; to/from "Lichanos", @9:8; then another 9:8 to "Parhypate".
Now a 256:243 semitone (known as "Limma") to ""Hypate".
(This is typically given descending, I chose to start from "0" and go up.)
From C, a D that is specifically a major tone interval (vs a minor tone, 10:9) to/from the C, then an E by another major tone, then the Limma to "F".
But that's one tuning of said 'diatonic'. The one attributed to Archytas is quite different.
There, that "D" to "E" is a larger tone than a major tone, 8:7. So we have an "E" now that's ~435¢ from "C", ie., a Parhypate around 33¢ sharper than the previous example, so a smaller interval to the Hypate, a 28:27.
SO! The only point in using those terms is to get into intonation theory, and is entirely beyond the scope here.
There is none of this in for instance 12tET. 4:3, Hypate, is 2¢ smaller in ET.
Genus, whether diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic, all meaning therein is strictly from tunings, and pertains specifically to a tetrachord'.

"the argument was convincing" is the very picture of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[mattrix3]

"the argument was convincing" is the very picture of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

In my defense, when I originally stated this, I said:

Some texts equate "Dominant/tonic" with "Tenor/finalis", and that as the Church modes were diatonic, then "tonal" terminology applies. Here, I'm just parroting what I have read, I don't understand the difference in usage between the two paradigms.

This is the way knowledge is obtained, you look at what others before you have said, ask questions and hopefully you will become more proficient in the subject matter.

As an example, I have never seen an 'electron', I have not even conducted an experiment that would support their existence. I have read what others have said, and found their "arguments convincing".

Is this wrong?
None of us live in a vacuum.

[mattrix3]

Why are you copy/pasting these fancy words from Ancient Greek intonation theory?
...
The only point in using those terms is to get into intonation theory,

*Cleonides avoids going into precise tunings and intonation.
He uses general terms, translated as tone, semitone, diesis etc, without specifying exact sizes.

Those fancy words are the terms used by (the translation of) the author. I was being careful not to add any personal bias.

You've confounded ancient Greece with the Church modes, for starters.

I have assumed some continuity from Ancient Greece to the Church.
It seems remarkable that of all the possible scale patterns that the Church Fathers should independently select the same pattern as proposed by the Ancient Greeks 1,000 years earlier. Were there special properties of what other people call a 'diatonic' scales that were known to the church?

In the specific Aristoxenus diatonic we have: "Mese", 1:1 or 0 at bottom; to/from "Lichanos", @9:8; then another 9:8 to "Parhypate".
Now a 256:243 semitone (known as "Limma") to ""Hypate".

Are you sure about the direction and step sizes?
That the Parhyphate has a higher pitch than the Mese?
And that the step from the Mese to the Parhyphate is 2 tones upwards?

Cleonides really got that wrong.
What are your references for this arrangement?

I have not read Aristxenus as I have been unable to find an English translation of Aristxenus' treatise online.
Or, for that matter, online English translations of Archytas and Boethius.

If you can point me to these it would be much appreciated.

*Cleonides : Harmonic Introduction, from www.attalus.org

[shawshawraw]

Wow I’m totally lost. What does all this have to do to understand modes, keys, scales as of today…

Anyways, I’d share my own practical handbook for those things. Reading your archaic references gives me a weird feeling as if people don’t live past forty.

The only scales I care about:
- Major scale x12
- Harmonic minor scale x12
- Real melodic minor scale x12
- Diminished scale x3
- Whole tone scale x2

These babies can do almost everything. Plus major/minor blues scales x12 and a chromatic scale for soloing purposes.

The chord vamps for warming up modal sounds:
Dorian: Cm7 | F/C
Phrygian: Cm7 | DbMaj7/C
Lydian: C | D7/C
Mixolydian: C | Bb/C
Aeolian: Ab/C | Bb/C
Locrian: Gb/C | Ab/C
Ionian: G/C | F/C

Canonical keys: in major or minor. But I’d think of blues on its own as it really is a blend featuring clashes.

[gaggle of hermits]

Wow I’m totally lost. What does all this have to do to understand modes, keys, scales as of today…

I wouldn't sweat it. most of the greek stuff the OP is banging on about has very little to do with the practice of music today (unless you happen to be writing supposedly authentic speech-and-music renditions of old greek plays).

and unfortunately, the OP's approach to the greek stuff seems to have come mostly from wikipedia-level research, which is not bad in itself but it's generally stripped of important context. for one, greek formal music was used very differently to even the use of modes in western church music.

second, a lot of confusion stems from the way the greek scholars documented it: they count from the top note down not the bottom-up way we do it.

third, the concept of the tetrachord is fundamental to greek modal conventions: the ones that are most similar to the western church modes are two tetrachords (that is, four-note scales) linked set a tone apart. because of that formalisation and the top-down/bottom-up thing they can seem to be defined differently. (technically, they are, because the likes of Boethius were fitting them into a different musical system).

fourth, and the one that's most relevant to the argument over pitches, is that the greeks had three different tuning systems: "diatonic", "enharmonic" and "chromatic". these alter the pitches of the notes used in the corresponding modes/scales. for good measure, we wound up using the same terms for entirely different things, which naturally adds to the confusion.

so, long story short: trying to directly compare greek to western usage is a fool's errand. you have to treat them as separate things and bear in mind the way the ancient greeks actually composed and used music, which has very little commonality with the conventions formulated by monks in the Middle Ages for use in church though the greek texts were used as inspiration.