More About Modes

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:43 PM

>With a good understaanding of theory it is easy to handle unfamiliar or complex music.

>Without it, unless you are a genuine gei(n)us (in which case you probably figured out a very similar set if noit the same set of observations) you will find much unfamiliar music and most complex music very difficult to understand.

The most important thing to remember is that first comes the music and then the theory.
Schoenberg and the atonalists made a point of the theory coming first. This is not generally emotionally accepted by the public as "music". (Only by academicians, Berg's Wozzeck notwithstanding.)

Bach broke every rule in theory that he was supposed to have engendered.

The notion of "modes" is merely a tool to help identify certain melodic components.

The analogy would be if we offered "socialism" in the context of "capitalism" as a system of governance. Certain parts of "Capitalism" could be construed as being "Socialist".
Vice versa.

Music is a language that is subject to the fluidity of most languages in usage. It's hard to pin formal academic rules to it as there is flexibility in grammar and syntax.

The notion of "modes' is theoretical and in the use of folk music problematic as a result.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 02:01 PM

Listening to the scales may help us to recognise them in the wild. [quote]when I am in the wild I have better things to do than listen to scales.
Wild thing,..... you make my heart sing.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 02:20 PM

Music is a language that is subject to the fluidity of most languages in usage. It's hard to pin formal academic rules to it as there is flexibility in grammar and syntax.

It's a lot easier to find rules that describe music than it is to find rules that describe language. Both are perfectly possible, and the results are useful. (Would you like to try learning a foreign language with no grammar of any sort available?)

The notion of "modes' is theoretical and in the use of folk music problematic as a result.

There are many different concepts of "mode" and some of them were invented specifically FOR folk music. Accordingly they're the ones you want to use.

It gets wearisome having "academic" and "theoretical" trotted out as cliched insults over and over again, directed at unnamed enemies. If there's something specific you're objecting to, say what it is. I don't see anything objectionably snooty about telling somebody they can play "The Old Grey Cat" in the usual key on a D whistle with no crossfingerings or halfholings. That's what saying it's in the dorian mode amounts to. It's a useful thing to know before you start playing.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:48 PM

the old grey cat, a fine tune, havent played it for about 5 years, thanks Jack.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:04 PM

As I understand so far a Mode is as much a signature as it is a binary formula. A series whole and 1/2 steps taken out of a chromatic scale or run of notes.

The Ionian Mode is W W 1/2 W W W 1/2 W and that mode signature can mean C Ionian when it starts with C. It also can mean D or G or F Ionian when that same signature of intervals is applied a scale starting with D or G or F. Is this correct?



C Ionian       D Ionian
C               D
> W             > W
D               E
> W             > W
E               F#
> 1/2          > 1/2
F               G
> W             > W
G               A
> W             > W
A               B
> W             > W
B               C#
>1/2            > 1/2
C               D


Don

Thanks again by the way.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Artful Codger
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:04 PM

Don: Yep, in a modern, equal-tempered system, the framework for a mode is its tonal "center" [root] and its scale pattern; this combined with its characteristic usage defines a "mode".

But this is a revisionist view that largely ignores just temperament and its intervalic variations (based more on the overtone series than the 12th root of 2) which make the modes sound more distinct. The interval between I and V in Ionian is not quite the same fifth as between I and V in Dorian, because the underlying harmonic progression is still centered on the Ionian root. So when talking about intonation or the derivation of the scale patterns, saying "D Dorian is just C Ionian starting on D" pretty well sums it up.

You get a truer idea of modal music when it's played on the natural notes of a tinwhistle or diatonic harmonica (where each instrument is tuned to a specific key using a semi-just temperament) than when it's played on an equal-tempered instrument like guitar or piano. Transpose to a different key (but not scale pattern) on the same instrument, and the modal flavor will change somewhat--though our modern ears, accustomed to hearing a wide variety of temperaments, are largely oblivious to the differences--and they don't affect how we play modal music.

So unless you need the theoretical nitty-gritty, an even-tempered view is usually sufficient for understanding what's going on in modal folk music.


Campin: Artificiality is more likely to be involved in extending the range than limiting it, as when somebody with a new wide-range instrument or a wider-ranging voice than the norm gets hold of a tune and adds some flashy stuff of their own.

Initially, yes, but by the period of time we're mostly concerned with, such range limitations had largely disappeared, and these artificial extensions had become common practice rather than flash. In vocal music, a person can sing a tune going from III to III as easily as from I to I or V to V, in any mode--the range limitation one has with an instrument tuned to a specific just-tempered scale never existed for voice. Even in medieval times folk music must have exhibited far more freedom than liturgical music, where strict rules were imposed to accord with religious theory. Unfortunately, during those times, the clergy had a virtual monopoly on the recording of music, so the relics that survive are hopelessly skewed.

Nevertheless, I do see that plagal tunes may exhibit different characteristic patterns than authentic mode ones, and from this standpoint the distinction is still relevant. The old liturgical practices shaped our modern notions and continue to exercise a strong influence even at centuries of remove.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 09:41 AM

Lox

No theorist claims to be prescribing a system of rules, any more than Newton can be accused of prescribing a set of laws by which nature must operate.

However, newtons observations were an essential step in helping us understand the mechanics of nature.

A good analogy. The planets followed their courses and apples fell from trees quite happily before Newton came up with his laws just as traditional singers sang their songs and played their tunes before the musicoligists got hold of them. From "The Character of Physical Law" by Richard P. Feynman -

Newton was originally asked about his theory - 'But it doesn't mean anything - it doesn't tell us anything.'. He said 'It tells you how it moves. That should be enough. I have told you how it moves, not why.'.

Newton's laws describe what happens and allow us to predict what will happen but they don't help us understand why it happens.

If I come across a tune where the tonic is clearly A and the Fs and Cs are all sharp but the Gs are all natural I might wonder why it sounds so "right". It's Myxolydian! Ah, well, that explains everything. No it doesn't, it doesn't explain anything, it just sticks a label on it.

With a good understaanding of theory it is easy to handle unfamiliar or complex music.

I'm not that concerned with handling the unfamiliar or the complex, I'm more concerned with getting to grips with the familiar and the simple. We are told that Ddominant7 "resolves" Gmajor, that the F# "leads to" the G and the C "leads to" the B. What does that actually mean? Saying that it is a full close or a perfect cadence just labels it without explaining the subjective experience.

As a musician (of sorts), my experience tells me what sounds good; as a scientist, I want to know why and, so far, music theory doesn't seem to tell me that.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:30 PM

We are told that Ddominant7 "resolves" Gmajor, that the F# "leads to" the G and the C "leads to" the B. What does that actually mean?

"Leads to" comes from singing or playing in parts. If the harmony is all made up from vertical combinations of single lines, that's the most likely way to realize it (particularly for a vocal ensemble, anything else would be too hard to sing). Hence the idea of "voice leading".

D going to G melodically is the usual "modal dominant" idea. Ultimately it probably comes from the very ancient tradition of pentachordal melodies - the authentic modes retained the idea of stating the extremes of the pentachordal gamut as a marker of finality. The rest of the harmony is built round that.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 03:48 PM

'Within You Without You' sounds as if it's trying to be Locrian

It's Mixolydian

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 09:37 AM

All very interesting, Jack, but, unless you're saying "There's no reason for it, it's just the way it's always been done.", it still doesn't answer the question "Why?". Most people don't know anything about the "very ancient tradition of pentachordal melodies" but they recognise a full close if they hear one (musicians anyway). Is there no actual reason behind it or is it just an ancient cliche that we've learnt to recognise?

Harmony can be talked about in terms of notes whose frequencies are in simple ratios fitting more or less comfortably together. 2/1 (an octave) is boring, 3/2 (a perfect fifth) sounds more interesting, 729/512 (a tritone aka The Devil's Interval) AAAAGGGGH! It isn't just vertical. I knew that playing B and F together sounded horrible but didn't realise till I was noodling around that it works if you play them in sequence. I nearly fell off my chair.

What is happening when you go from D to G? "D going to G melodically is the usual "modal dominant" idea." doesn't really tell me anything.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jim McLean
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 11:01 AM

John Purser (Scotland's Music 2007) suggestd that it is the influence of the bagpipe scale (mixolydian) on Scottish traditional music which leads to the flattened seventh being sung. However Francis Collinson (The Traditional and national Music of Scotland 1966) theorises that the origin of the pipe scale may have been vocal and that the flattened seventh is symptiomatic of untutored singers in Scotland.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:41 PM

Snail,

It might not tell you anything because you haven't fully understood it.

When you listen to music, you hear where it is likely to go and you have a sense of direction.

This is the result of tension and release.

The classic examples of tension are, the seventh note of the major scale crying out to move up a semitone to the tonic note above it. and the tritone in a dominant seventh chord which cries out to resolve onto notes 1 and 3 of a tonic major or minor chord.

Its about dissonant sounds resolving onto consonant sounds.

Painful sounds resolving onto pleasant sounds.

unstable intervals resolving onto stable ones.

The ear likes music to resolve into stable chords.

Why is that? ... well that's another question ...

but the answer to your question is that dominant to tonic resolution involves movement from dissonant harmony to consonant harmony and the ear likes to hear resolution of unstable chords onto stable ones.

What makes a chord stable or unstable? well that's part of the study of theory.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:50 AM

I don't believe any of those pseudo-physical explanations for which chords can be final and which not. It's almost all cultural. There are cultures that have harmony but don't use pure fifths, others that deliberately retune their instruments to flatten the octave. And nobody seemed to mind the fact that old church bells produce anharmonic tones with the strongest one being around an augmented fourth - on the pseudo-physicalist theory, that would mean that even a single note constituted a dissonance that needed to resolve.

Ending on an unresolved dom7 has been normal in jazz for decades. Highland pipes play a continuous drone on A - tunes in B minor still sound final when they stop. Same goes for Hungarian dance music that uses the "gardon" string drum - it just bangs out an unvarying D regardless of the key the fiddler or singer's in, the pitch will never change to make a final cadence.

You need to look to history and the social sciences for an explanation of the norms behind harmonic idioms.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Mark Clark
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:37 AM

Entirely missing—as far as I can tell—from this fascinating thread is a link to Jack's outstanding work titled Scales and Modes in Scottish Traditional Music. I know it's linked from other threads but the casual reader might be hard pressed to find the work that several posters referred to.

Thanks, Jack, and all of you scholarly theorists who contribute to these discussions.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 12:54 PM

Jack, I was referring specificaally to Snails comments regarding voice leading.

In non functional harmony this approach obviously doesn't apply.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:21 AM

Indeed, Lox, it is understanding I seek but my point is that saying a particular Pitch Set (to borrow Jack's term) is called Myxolydian does not explain anything, it merely gives you a label to recognise it by. Useful but no challenge to understanding.

You say -

"When you listen to music, you hear where it is likely to go"
"the seventh note of the major scale crying out to move up a semitone to the tonic note above it"
"The ear likes music to resolve into stable chords."

All of these are subjective observations. Music theory, at least at the level of the books I've been reading, does nothing to explain them, it just gives them names.

"the answer to your question is that dominant to tonic resolution involves movement from dissonant harmony to consonant harmony"

Checking my books, it appears that the dominant without the seventh moving to the tonic is sufficient to define a Perfect Cadence so it is a move from one consonance to another. Anyway, the description seems to imply more than that. It is not just one set of notes followed by another but a specific set "resolving" to another with specific notes "leading to" specific notes.

"The ear likes music to resolve into stable chords.

Why is that? ... well that's another question ..."

I was going to say that's the question I'm asking but actually I don't think it is. That moves into the psychology of perception. There seems to be a correlation between the simple mathematics of notes in vertical harmony and the effect on the human ear. Quite why is, indeed, "another question" but I'd like to find similar correlations in horizontal harmony.

Jack calls it "pseudo-physical" and implies that it's just cultural and therefore, presumably, learnt. I think there is an element of truth in that but that pull from the leading note to the tonic feels real enough.

I'll respond to Jack's post separately.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:41 AM

saying a particular Pitch Set (to borrow Jack's term) is called Myxolydian

A pitch set is just the collection of notes used by a tune. A mode (like mixolydian) comprises a pitch set together with a tonal centre.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:23 AM

Fair enough, Jack, but what I am trying to say is that saying A mixolydian (sorry about previous misspelling) is just a shorthand for "The pitch set A B C# D E F# G with tonal centre A". It does not explain anything or require any understanding, it just makes it more convenient to talk about it.

Going back to your previous post, there are limitless possibilities in what can be done under the name of music. Each culture or idiom only uses a subset. The existance of one idiom does not invalidate another any more than French invalidates Gaelic.

Just because other cultures do not use the full close does not alter the fact that it is a cornerstone of Western European music or prove that it does not represent something with real physical/mathematical significance. It's use in western music may be learned but riding a bike is learned. What you are learning in that case is how to interact with the real physical world of motion, balance and tarmac. Could it not be that what you are learning with music is an interaction with the interplay of harmonic relationships over time? My grumble is that statements such as "this chord resolves to that chord", "this note leads to that note" really don't seem to say anything meaningful about it. They are just observations of subjective experience.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:42 AM

Fair point. You are learning a cultural value attached to something that has a physical description.

One possibility might be that a V-I cadence emulates what happens to a sounding body as it loses energy and the sound dies away: the higher partials fade out first, leaving the fundamental. And as you add more energy (strike or blow harder) you will typically actuate a stack of partials (exactly which depends on the physical system). So the harmonic behaviour of physical systems does roughly correspond with what happens in a piece of music as it emerges and returns to silence.

As does arch form in melodies. But there's an interesting discrepancy with regard to octaves: melodically, an octave usually marks an extreme point that demands a downward resolution. Whereas a harmonic octave is next to the fundamental in stability.

The person who's thought hardest about this sort of thing in recent decades was Giacinto Scelsi. I've heard some of his music but don't know his writings. What he ended up with, after perceptual/meditative exercises that involved listening to the same note on a piano for weeks on end, bore no resemblance to any kind of tonality.

Subject: RE: More About Modes
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:52 PM

Thanks for that, Jack, but, as I said earlier, for the time being I'm trying to understand the familiar and the simple before moving on. I think it may take me quiet a while to get to Giacinto Scelsi.