I finally understood modes

[jancivil]

right
I recognize you were referring to the assertion of confusion, I'd read all of what you'd written.

I like the two-chord vamp, or no chords when I want to solo. I think even three can get to be unwieldy.

[jancivil]

here's a big fight about 'what mode', that's entertaining, to me at least, due to the OWNAGE.
apparently the particular publisher of an article, it being academic and all, insisted a response to this "refutation" be published, or else.

response to Kasper Sloots

spoiler: Sloots has really stepped in it... I guess there's no way to write it up without making him look really bad.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I concur with Jan on this, and for further info I post a section from Jeppesen's Counterpoint where he defines a scale as a dead abstraction and mode as the living music arising from it. Jeppesen is famous for correcting Fux as to the style of Palestrina in his dissertation about vocal polyphony of the 16th century. And as Jan noted, original modal counterpoint is about melodies interacting. There is no such thing as functional chord analysis in neither Fux nor Jeppesen. It is based on intervals, triads, and first and foremost movements. The language of harmonies was limited, often to basic theory about triads, and therefore partly intuitive, which also made it lesser "boxed" than the cadences of tonal music. The block-chord approach of modern chord instruments like guitars and keys would apply to first species counterpoint only, thus the most basic form of voiceleading. But here is Jeppesen on modes. Read from a little below the first sentence on page 62. As to what is said about the importance of sense of tonic to a mode, Jeppesen explains this at the end of page 63 and why a mode is not identical to that of the scale per se, e.g. a scale that shares the mode's notes but not the sense of tonic arising from the music. Finally, the notion of one mode as a function of another mode, e.g. a transposition on a major scale, is not something included in the original use of modes. As Jeppesen point out elsewhere, you would never go from an untransposed mode to a transposed one or vice versa in original modal music. You may have changed the mode itself, but the modes would still share the same tonic. Thus a lot of this modern "confusion" is merely based on a troublesome historical transition of modal music into the frame of the tonal and chord driven music of today. Like trying to understand an oxymoron in some senses.

[Pashkuli]

Just a reminder:
Modes are not scales. Scales are consecutive notes of any mode (in order).

Modes always do refer to some base\bass note as an anchor. Hence, also to a two note base harmony or a triad\chord from the same base\bass note. Those are called "characteristic" chords for the respective mode.
By changing the underling base\bass note\chord the mode changes automatically (no need to change its notes or scale)!

Here is an example: the melody keeps the same, the base note changes, hence we experience different modes of the same melody. I learned this when I was 7, hearing this song.
https://youtu.be/HAQQUDbuudY

Key (Tonality) is much more complicated as it includes groups of many modes and\or scales with specific interval partial interval structure.

For example D (Le) ionian major and C (Bo) ionian major modes have the same scale, but from a different root\start note.
For example A♭ (Fo) ionian and A♭ (Fo) lydian are in the same Tonality (have characteristic major and other intervals) but has also A♭ (Fo) biharmonic major. Their Modes from the same A♭ (Fo) root though sound completely different.

A scale is just a formula. A scale does not refer to a named root note. It only starts from a note... any note!

Some symmetric scales can be modes on their own: i.e. Chromatic, Wholetone (Twotone), Diminished

How to learn tonal structure:
1. Tone
2. Note
3. Interval (any two tones\notes usually within the span of two renovas\"octaves", sometimes in three, extremely rarely in four)
4. Scale (interval combinations in order usually within one renova\"octave")
· some scales (symmetric) can be Modes of their own
5. Arpeggio (scale-like tonal structure which might span two renovas\"octaves" without using the same named notes)
· usually a melodic equivalent of ordered notes of respective chords, but not always ordered, which might make them sound like a Mode
6. Mode (scale with a reference base note, strictly in one renova\"octave")
7. Tonality: group of structurally similar modes from the same base\root note

[Pashkuli]

To better understand modes in practice, I always advice to start with simple pentatonic scales and change\transpose them as same pentatonic (structurally), whilst the underlaying bass note (or chord) or simple harmony stays the same (in some rhythm of course, for musical meaning).

Pentatonics are really easy to memorise on certain instruments (fretted mostly) or on a standard piano (the balck\smaller keys form pentatonic scales, but transposing it as required above is a pain in the butt).

Get the notes for the so called A (Sa) minor pentatonic:
· here is the interval formula ("semi-tones") from a starting 0 tone: 0·3·5·7·10:0
Start playing some of the notes and hold a bass note A (Sa). Cool, get in the mood of the mode.
Now, move the bass to C (Bo) and introduce some basic C (Bo) note or major chord. Wow, the mode changed... well, we transposed the bass\harmony, no surprises.

But now hold that chord... and transpose the pentatonic this time by 2 notes up (the old-school guys call those wrongly "semi-tones") or 10 down. Ok, let's use chromatic shift 2 up or 10 down.
Dramatic and Lydian...


For advanced students Dominant pentatonic and a special hexatonic (Blues pentatonic extension) can be included later.
Now go shift the pentatonic 4 more notes down (chromatically, duh!) or 8 up. Damn, sounds sparkling, doesn't it. That is the true natural major. Now make the pentatonic a Dominant one. Even better mode emphasis you'll get!

From here you can go even to a harmonic minor (and its modes), but that is advanced stuff.

[jancivil]

"by 2 notes up (the old-school guys call those wrongly "semi-tones")"
Why are you using a vague-assed term like "notes" to say someone - or a whole lot of someones - is "wrong"? These are semitones or they aren't. Even the very beginner can count.
You may be delusional enough to again have a special language all your own*, but this doesn't convey a damned thing and the superior look you must think impresses is actually looking like an idiot.

"and change\transpose them as same pentatonic,": What's the point? If this means moving the same 5 notes in the same relationship (can't tell because of the shite way you write, are we changing or transposing? Transposing in no way affects the construction.)... good grief.
This is not promoting a better understanding at all. I taught y'all about modes completely, and it's been iterated correctly in an originalist reading of Species already. You are promoting nowt but confusion and incoherence.

"For advanced students"* LOL, what a fvcking poseur.
you barely know your ass from a hole in the ground
(and that's I think a generous assessment after this utter nonsense).

Chords are by definition secondary to modes. The prevalence of no chords in modal praxis in the world over time is far, far greater than of sticking chords onto modes. {*: Dominant pentatonic: that sounds edumacated to you, does it? What dominates? You're using lingo from tonal function, which in_no_way exists in modal praxis. It's a term we do not have the definition for, as it's strictly your special lingo.
Can't dazzle with brilliance, then baffle with bullshit.}

And then you act as though making Lydian out of a pentatonic in this special kind of way is showing us how to proceed. Look, this is rather simple, but you can't write it up except to convolute, and in a way that itself reveals someone that doesn't really know. Who do you think you're talking to? You're talking AT. The beginner is confused, shit, I'm confused it's so over-complicated. If you're not going to be collegial enough to be considerate at all, we cannot consider you a colleague. This is no better than heckling, to be disruptive.
"... and a special hexatonic (Blues pentatonic extension) can be included later." Lordy deliver us from this bullshit. No one is looking to you for answers, poser.

No, transparently you seek to make the very rudimentary things you have an inchoate grasp of at best seem, well, competitive. You're incompetent.

[Hink]

the thread is about understanding modes...not you statements...if he is wrong, correct him, if you want to call him names and such please do it elsewhere.

[jancivil]

It's absurd to act like we can deal with a person's statements entirely in the abstract like that.
He is incompetent and he is posing as something he is as far from as it gets.
These are observations.

But hey, it's HINK'S FORUM, isn't it. So the wildly inconsiderate, posturing individual that has wasted so_much screen space is good, but me, who's trying her best to give the room the real deal has to be corrected. Do whatever. it's gotten to be mainly a source of regret for me to help here, when it's whackamole time again most of the time.


jebus gahd am I relieved this SOB is gone

[jancivil]

"if he is wrong, correct him"
Sure dude, let's do 'him' statements, instead. Either I'm talking to the individual or there's a universal you.
The latter is just not the case.
I have corrected "him", and "he" (it's absurd to talk like 'you' and 'he' are different constructs in language) has made a mockery of this board.

Edit for posterity: “Hink” is every bit as apt for these topics as “Pashkuli”. more of a bully though

[Hink]

put him on mute like most people do but stop the you statements, anything else you say in this thread not related to the topic will be gone...he did not start the topic so this is derailing anothers thread with an ongoing issue...put him on mute and move on.

[Pashkuli]

I only responded to the OP – DJ Warmonger.

Music is a creative endeavour. No one can ever tell me how to name music elements. I have my own names and look from a broad point of view. As long as this does not change how the composition will sound, names are just constructs. I am and I have been a creative and analytical person by birth ever since.

Modes can be considered as a 'special case' or 'rectilinear\undeviating' tonality.
Also, generally Tonality is divided in two main groups: major and minor
But that is just a reference to a common and specific interval in the structure of the modes (and their respective scales=gamma).

In another thread I think no one of the participants gave a non-subjective explanation regarding the term Dominant besides me. Causing a subjective perception of "tension" and consecutively a "resolution" of that "tension" has no connection to something (in musical context) being dominated.
I explained: it is all about the tones (undertones and overtones as well) and their intervalic structure as notes in harmonies.
It just so happens that within the Dominant structure, the composer can permutate the most number of diatonic harmonies\chords in the chosen Tonality.
This Dominates all the notes and cause s them to "get excited", "resonate"... which the old-school guys chose to call "tension", thus creating a stylistic structure known as I-IV-V... I, where V is the above mentioned Dominant.
It also coincides with the structure of the Mixolydian mode (new form as ascending scale), but I simply call it: the true natural major.
The Ionian major (chosen by subjective preference as "natural" in medieval times) is not exactly "natural" or "happy".

[Hink]

stay on topic...I'm really not playing and I am not babysitting....

[Farnaby]

I'm not convinced the Jeppeson distinction between modes and scales is massively helpful to the average musician. I have read it a few times and it does seem a little pedantic.

A scale is an ordered series of notes, a palette if you will, from which music is derived. A tune in C major is going to primarily use the notes of the C major scale. Similarly a tune in Dorian mode is going to use the notes of the Dorian scale.

I think Jeppesen is trying to distinguish between the music arising from the use of the scale and the scale itself. So music in Dorian mode is distinctive, rather like pentatonic music is distinctive.

The nearest analogy I can come up with is the practice of showing the guitar chords/TAB that will be used at the beginning of a song. This tells you the materials in use, but gives no clue as to the finished structure.

Maybe I should read it again! In the meantime feel free to help me understand better.

[jancivil]

I'm not convinced there is this "average musician" to speak of. The idea from Jeppeson is probably not going to be grokked by beginners, I suppose. It appeals to me instantly. albeit I never bothered with Species or any of that, really. So I'm not going to explain Jeppeson but offer my considered thought on the matter, which is really why do I prefer modality as a melodic device to major/minor.

So, a segment of the analogy there seems completely off base to me: "but gives no clue as to the finished structure".
Here's why: a mode, at least in my experience as a musician located in the 20th and 21st centuries, is something we can grasp with our mind/inner ear from its name/its identity. It has an unmistakable aroma.
But I focused on playing modal from age 15 on. All the things we know they used to call the Ecclesiastic Modes (as a beginning) I get a sense of music from the name. Lydian; how do you mistake it for anything else? OTOH: Major key has things Lydian cannot have; conversely that #4 as pertains to Lydian you want to deal with strictly, in resolution as it tonicizes or modulates to the new home; vs. with the mode it's the primary indicator of character and doesn't have to lead up to 5. CF: the ^7 in Watermelon in Easter Hay.
You don't get a sense from the word "Phrygian"? Let alone Locrian. Dorian with a major 6th. I'm already there. YMMV

OTOH: Major scale: what is its character? For it to be major key it's inextricable from V-I. We need an idea outside the scale for it to be itself (absent the harmony, it's probably not major, but just the Ionian construct; that said, if there's a pronounced leading tone doing 7-8, it's implied dominant-tonic paradigm). Do, a deer, a fe-male deer... winds up with a tonal cadence we all saw coming, and the tune is inextricable from its harmony. Some-WHERE, over the rainbow... is pretty much the same deal.

[Pashkuli]

Major\Minor obviously means interval of a scale formula.
In 12-TET it is 4 (fourth) and 3 (third) respectively. 4 is larger (major) than 3 (which is smaller, minor then 4).

In old-school terms it is major third (3rd) and minor third (♭3), hence the names.
There are numerous so called major scales and their corresponding modes sound completely different.
Different modes have different characteristic intervals (of their respective scales).
Obviously for the major\minor modes that would be the third interval (if we count the root note as having the 1st interval, which is 0 = unison of itself).

Modes can be understood with practice. Scales can only give a vague "feel" about the mode they represent when referred to a tonal (single) note centre (lowest of the scale in a renova\"octave"). Scales though are more for technical exercise and practicing the instrument strictly technically, whilst the modes are more musical\creative practice and for composing\improvising.

Since most people do not know how to imply modes in their playing\improvising... they call them scales, e.g. Pentatonic scale. And this is pity... and quite ignorant tbh.