discussion from 101

[gaggle of hermits]

It is a part of the system, but not in use for obvious reason (the tritonus).

i guess the augmented fourth in lydian isn't a thing then.

maybe you want to have another go that.

also, looking at this from another angle, if we're talking about modes in use in music today, why only seven? why don't the superlocrian, the phrygian dominant, the lydian augmented and others not get a pass in your "pragmatic" rules of music?

[fmr]

Well, by starting with the most simple departure, namely the main seven modes in existence now (which still do not mean they are the only ones), which practical oriented music books do when people are learning the deed.

If that's a question, I could point you to the book Messiaen wrote: "THE TECHNIQUE OF MY MUSICAL LANGUAGE"

https://www.amazon.com/Olivier-Messiaen ... 0046290419

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

To a Newbie? Good luck. As for me, I stick to mine.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

i guess the augmented fourth in lydian isn't a thing then.

There are some issues about pitch concerning the difference between a flattened fifth and augmentet fourth somewhere in the foot notes. Something about pitch then and now I do not quite get. But they are not treated as the same However as far as I recall, the augmented fourth could be coped with in the voice leading. I have a faint memory of an example somewhere in Gradus. Besides, Locrian has no complete basic triad as tonic, Lydian has. It can be dealt with afair.

[fmr]

To a Newbie? Good luck. As for me, I stick to mine.

Fux ins't for newbies either. Anyone that didn't learn the basics about harmony and counterpoint, and writing linearly, will feel lost with it. Fux is one of those treaties the greatly benefits of teacher support, IMO. But I was answering to YOU. If you went through Fux, you are more than ready to learn something with Messiaen. Form a modern perspective, that's the best you can find talking about modes. And there isn't much to choose from once you exclude all the "mumbo-jumbo" out there.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Fair point, fmr. You are right I have been ready to move on since forever and your bid is deffo a candidate if I ever get my ass out of this ancient sht I am doping myself with. Thanks.

[gaggle of hermits]

There are some issues about pitch concerning the difference between a flattened fifth and augmentet fourth somewhere in the foot notes. Something about pitch then and now I do not quite get. But they are not treated as the same However as far as I recall, the augmented fourth could be coped with in the voice leading. I have a faint memory of an example somewhere in Gradus. Besides, Locrian has no complete basic triad as tonic, Lydian has. It can be dealt with afair.

In pythagorean tuning there is a difference between an augmented fourth and flat fifth if you're deriving both for use in a scale built from a root tone, that's true. but that's not why glarean (and later authors until the 19th century) rejected the hyperaeolian as he called it (the naming goes back a couple of centuries further to a mode that ends on f# rather than b). your second point is a lot closer.

it was because of the "false fifth" as glarean called it, which could be dealt with by raising it a semitone but it then effectively becomes another form of phrygian and so became redundant. a discordant fourth in lydian wasn't a problem as the fourth in vertical harmony was already treated as a dissonance - whether perfect or augmented. so you wouldn't realistically get a tritone appearing in most contexts but you would risk it in an unadjusted hyperaeolian or locrian (the mi against fa problem that fux/aloysius does mention).

[Functional]

Semantics, semantics. That is the cool thing about being a pragmatist: The worth of truth depends on the extent to which it makes a difference in practise. I make music using church modes very deliberately and dedicated. Basically, I just need to know the diatonic relations of a mode, e.g. that ionian in half steps from tonic is 2212221. Then I can transpose to any root. Can I work with notions of a "major key" and "minor key" only? Hell no, that is too vague, I need to keep their modes apart, and aeoloian minor is not the same as a phrygian minor and tralala. I take all seven of them, thanks.

See, you say you're a pragmatist but... this doesn't seem like a pragmatic approach at all. Why would you want to memorize these scalar constructions* with intervals like "2212221"? That just seems lot of excessive work. And as far as "major" and "minor" keys go, why do the modes even matter? It doesn't really matter whatever you think is the "phrygian minor", you can just make a tune in it, call it minor and that's that.

Pragmatic approach would be one that concerns itself with the actual music rather than writing excessive amounts about their method to create music as if they had something to prove to everyone else - all the while constantly blasting about "V-I theory" or whatever with seemingly little idea about how that stuff works in the first place. For one, melodic material doesn't have to start on the tonic practically ever and it doesn't really doesn't need to end there in most phrases - only in ones that want to articulate some form of (stronger) closure.

I also wanna point out that tritone is generally considered as an augmented fourth interval, not a flat fifth one. They're considered enharmonic in modern tuning, but even in this context, tritone is still a #4 rather than b5. The simple reason is because of how you get to there: three whole steps (note the name: tritone). So let's take B: B, C#, D# and.... E#. But it can be imho forgiven to call b5 a tritone because honestly in modern lingo these are used interchangeably and the baggage in the term "tritone" has been muddied up entirely to become moot. In most musical contextes that don't deal with historical accuracy of things, it doesn't matter if you call b5 a tritone. At all.

*as Jan has said before - modes are scalar constructions. It is quite apparent because the original set consisted of 6 modes and their plagal variants (which is why the number 12 was passed) except that number also did vary occasionally by authors. If you accept that "dorian" is a mode in the same sense that locrian is a mode, then you inevitably have to deal with the fact that locrian is a modern construction that has nothing to do with historical traditions about modes. In historical sense, modes were different since they did have a specific note where they had to resolve and some other trivial baggage. And use of leading tones in modes that had none (such as dorian, corresponding to modern aeolian) was a thing there too. They weren't really bound by scales.

[vurt]

i bet poor tribe didn't expect the 101 thread to be for him

[Functional]

i bet poor tribe didn't expect the 101 thread to be for him

some of this is 201! the best kind of delay unit after all

[vurt]

i bet poor tribe didn't expect the 101 thread to be for him

some of this is 201! the best kind of delay unit after all

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

See, you say you're a pragmatist but... this doesn't seem like a pragmatic approach at all. Why would you want to memorize these scalar constructions* with intervals like "2212221"?

So I can transpose any mode on the fly. Pretty practical to me.

That just seems lot of excessive work. And as far as "major" and "minor" keys go, why do the modes even matter? It doesn't really matter whatever you think is the "phrygian minor", you can just make a tune in it, call it minor and that's that.

As said a phrygian minor is not the same as an aelian minor mode so minor is nt just minor when using modes.

I find these questions bizarre, really. Why not just call bananas and apples for fruits only? Go figure.

[gaggle of hermits]

i bet poor tribe didn't expect the 101 thread to be for him

'in your case,' said O'Brien, 'the worst thing in the world happens to be ...a lengthy discussion of the history of church modes.'

[Functional]

I find these questions bizzarre, really. Why not just call bananas and apples for fruits only? Go figure.

If the intent is to make a fruit salad, then one would indeed call it a "fruit salad" rather than "so there's this much apple, this much bananas, this much oranges -salad"

One could then of course inquire about the contents of the fruit salad, but presumably it would be rather odd unless it was perhaps about some allergy (that I have never heard of before), because it probably doesn't matter otherwise if there's a specific fruit added in or not - you'll still understand that the "fruit salad" you ordered will be in the general spectrum of a "fruit salad". Yes, you're risking that there might be cantaloupe - but the cantaloupe will probably not be a dealbreaker.

Now I want you to think of tonality as a simple fruit salad - it contains a bit of everything. Whenever you put there a bit more apples than something else or omitted bananas, it doesn't really change the fact that it's a fruit salad. EDIT: what I mean is, if you end up on a minor tonic through b2 or the leading tone, it's still gonna be a minor tonic

So then, it would appear quite odd to me that one talks about being pragmatical while their method seems to be bound to some weird and seemingly rigid categories fueled by some bricolage of 16th and 18th century theory

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

i bet poor tribe didn't expect the 101 thread to be for him

Nope, and the info given has been just as usable as to the OP who took the road for obvious and stated reasons. What a mess. I have just swimmed and taken sauna, is feeling real good for now. So, the North takes a rest from the barricades again. if you cannot cope with a ceasefire, go screw each other meanwhile to stay alert.