Modal Harmony vid series

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Here is a series of videos I made of modal harmony and how to use it. I find that there is a lot of talk about modes(especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically. That's why I made this series. Check it out and I hope it helps you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eh_PQ ... bm0ykrL_M3

Post

Chandlerhimself wrote: I find that there is a lot of talk about modes (especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically.
Maybe because harmony belongs to tonality, and modes are a different thing, and when you start to "harmonize" modes, you end eventually destroying them. :roll:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
Chandlerhimself wrote: I find that there is a lot of talk about modes (especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically.
Maybe because harmony belongs to tonality, and modes are a different thing, and when you start to "harmonize" modes, you end eventually destroying them. :roll:
It seems people like destroying them then. It's been done for well over 100 years now and it's in some of the most popular songs in every genre. Also harmony doesn't belong to tonality, which is why terms like modal harmony, quartal harmony, etc exist.

Post

Chandlerhimself wrote:
fmr wrote:
Chandlerhimself wrote: I find that there is a lot of talk about modes (especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically.
Maybe because harmony belongs to tonality, and modes are a different thing, and when you start to "harmonize" modes, you end eventually destroying them. :roll:
It seems people like destroying them then. It's been done for well over 100 years now and it's in some of the most popular songs in every genre. Also harmony doesn't belong to tonality, which is why terms like modal harmony, quartal harmony, etc exist.
No, they are not destroying them. The people you are referring to are calling modes to something that's not modes at all, but simply note sequences in a certain key that start and end in another note that's not the tonic. Regarding your "modal harmony" it's not harmony at all, as well as there isn't "quartal harmony". There are quartal aggregates, but the composers who used them (the first ones were Schoenberg and Bartok) were not writing tonal music anymore, therefore, it wasn't harmony. Although it may be a little ambiguous, the term harmony appeared with the development of the twelve tone system and the tonal system.

Jazz people and pop people started to confuse and mix concepts, and that's where terms like "modal harmony" and "quartal harmony" were born. In fact, to have harmony, you need to have functions, therefore, you need to have a hierarchy of tonal degrees, and that's tonality. Having just sound aggregates cannot be described as "harmony" since you don't have any hierarchy defined, nor do you have any polar chords around which the other chords gravitate. You had sound aggregates since polyphony was born, in the XII century, but you see nowhere that classified as "harmony" (actually, many times you see contrapuntal writing and polyphony writing as opposed to harmonic writing.

Modes are by definition melodic, and if you want to preserve modes and their spirit, you will have to preserve that characteristic. If you want to see how "harmony" is treated in modal universe, listen to Debussy or Messiaen (I know, I know, they didn't play guitar, nor jazz).
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
Chandlerhimself wrote:
fmr wrote:
Chandlerhimself wrote: I find that there is a lot of talk about modes (especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically.
Maybe because harmony belongs to tonality, and modes are a different thing, and when you start to "harmonize" modes, you end eventually destroying them. :roll:
It seems people like destroying them then. It's been done for well over 100 years now and it's in some of the most popular songs in every genre. Also harmony doesn't belong to tonality, which is why terms like modal harmony, quartal harmony, etc exist.
No, they are not destroying them. The people you are referring to are calling modes to something that's not modes at all, but simply note sequences in a certain key that start and end in another note that's not the tonic. Regarding your "modal harmony" it's not harmony at all, as well as there isn't "quartal harmony". There are quartal aggregates, but the composers who used them (the first ones were Schoenberg and Bartok) were not writing tonal music anymore, therefore, it wasn't harmony. Although it may be a little ambiguous, the term harmony appeared with the development of the twelve tone system and the tonal system.

Jazz people and pop people started to confuse and mix concepts, and that's where terms like "modal harmony" and "quartal harmony" were born. In fact, to have harmony, you need to have functions, therefore, you need to have a hierarchy of tonal degrees, and that's tonality. Having just sound aggregates cannot be described as "harmony" since you don't have any hierarchy defined, nor do you have any polar chords around which the other chords gravitate. You had sound aggregates since polyphony was born, in the XII century, but you see nowhere that classified as "harmony" (actually, many times you see contrapuntal writing and polyphony writing as opposed to harmonic writing.

Modes are by definition melodic, and if you want to preserve modes and their spirit, you will have to preserve that characteristic. If you want to see how "harmony" is treated in modal universe, listen to Debussy or Messiaen (I know, I know, they didn't play guitar, nor jazz).
I don't know where you got that definition of harmony from, but it is incorrect.
In music, harmony is the use of simultaneous pitches (tones, notes), or chords.[1] The study of harmony involves chords and their construction and chord progressions and the principles of connection that govern them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony

What you are referring to is tonality, which is not the same as harmony. What I'm referring to is modality or modal harmony, which is different from tonal harmony. Modal harmony does have progressions and functions, but they aren't the same as tonal harmony, which is why it is called modal harmony.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding because what you are referring to is tonality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality not harmony. Harmony is extremely broad and doesn't just refer to things that are tonal.

Post

Chandlerhimself wrote: I don't know where you got that definition of harmony from, but it is incorrect.
In music, harmony is the use of simultaneous pitches (tones, notes), or chords.[1] The study of harmony involves chords and their construction and chord progressions and the principles of connection that govern them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony

What you are referring to is tonality, which is not the same as harmony. What I'm referring to is modality or modal harmony, which is different from tonal harmony. Modal harmony does have progressions and functions, but they aren't the same as tonal harmony, which is why it is called modal harmony.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding because what you are referring to is tonality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality not harmony. Harmony is extremely broad and doesn't just refer to things that are tonal.
Man I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over, and always moving in circles. You quoted Wikipedia without even reading what it says: here, take a look: "The study of harmony involves chords and their construction and chord progressions and the principles of connection that govern them." chord progressions and the principles that govern them. Those principles are the functions and the hierarchy of those function in terms of the tonality you are in. So, harmony IS tonality, was born with and from it, and can't exist without it. You can have sound aggregates without harmony, yes. They may even look like chords you know. But if they don't play their role (are not tied to a function) then they don't work like chords - they are simply notes that sound together, creating a sound colour effect.

Lets pick your own intro in your own video - you immediately start by tying modes to tonality - WRONG. Modes have NOTHING to do with tonality. Tonality is just two modes that survive from the eight that were used before - the mode of F or G, that, with some some alterations that were already used in "musica ficta" since the XIVth century led to the Major mode, and the mode of D (the main one) that, again with some alterations, led to the modern minor mode. The mode of E, probably the most strange and difficult to use of them all, was left out, although some of its spirit can also be found in the modern minor mode. So, if something, we now have two modes remaining from the eight original ones that were used in western music since the roman empire, more or less, and that were themselves originates in greek and byzantine traditions.

So, saying that if you play from D to D in C major you have the Dorian mode, or if you play from E to E you have the Phrygian mode is a total nonsense. What you have is the C major scale starting in other notes, but still the same - where you start and where you end means nothing. What may have some meaning if you harmonize with other notes, or play other notes - in that case you are modulating (the term comes from the modal music) to another tonality, using the same mode or another mode (Major or minor, since you only have those in tonality)

In modal music, each mode has its own "personality" (that's what mode means, literally: personality, way of being)- So, if you were creating a modal harmony, you'd have to create a different kind of harmony for each mode, that would be exclusive to it. And you would have to carefully avoid falling in tonal attractions, that would destroy the mode immediately (things like seventh chords, diminished chords, augmented chords, dominant chords, etc., had to be avoided carefully).

Schoenberg was the first to use quartal aggregates. He did that after doing the final step in tonal dissolution (the progressive tonality of late romantics - Liszt, Wagner and Mahler), and used quartal aggregates because he ewas writing atonal music, and neede to avoid tonality, which triads attract almost unavoidably. And he returned to old techniques like polyphony, imitation, etc., as an alternative to put order in what, without the tonal pillars, would become a chaos. Later, he came up with serialism.

Serialism was the predominant current after the second world war, until almost the eighties, where other currents and thoughts started to emerge. Some individuals didn't follow that, though, One of the biggest names in XXth century music (Olivier Messiaen) used modes AS modes (many modes, but not the ones you know). Of course he also used so8und aggregates, but, if you have the patience and will to know how he did that, and what principles he followed, you may try to find "The Technique of My Musical Language" where he explains everything. Anyway, he started where Debussy left, so, you may perhaps start to listen and study Debussy, to learn what modes are, and how they are used in a modern context, with "chords" (not treated as chords, with their tonal function, but as simple sound aggregates).

Sorry for the long post. We can keep this private, if you want, and are interested. This was just to point out that what you are calling modes are in fact NOT modes, and that your "modal "harmony" is not modal at all. I am tired of read simplistic and absurd approaches like: These are the chords we can build in this mode, blah, blah blah. Any child knows knows how to pile thirds. Using modes is way more complex than "piling" thirds on top of each note of the mode.

Let's not forget that other zones of the globe also use modes. Indian music use modes, in a way different than we do (but also without harmony). Arab music also use modes (those are more similar to ours, since they also descend from the byzantine/greek tradition). Again - no harmony. Etc...
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Jazz theory, jazz music education, etc. uses different terminology from classical music. It seems to me that people who frequent this forum should know this by now, and could possible avoid having the same silly argument over and over (expecting different results this time?). Telling people who come from a jazz theory/education background that they're wrong also doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time, but whatever floats your boat. Maybe if you yell it loud enough, enough times, everyone will conform to you. But probably not.

Post

datroof wrote:Jazz theory, jazz music education, etc. uses different terminology from classical music. It seems to me that people who frequent this forum should know this by now, and could possible avoid having the same silly argument over and over (expecting different results this time?). Telling people who come from a jazz theory/education background that they're wrong also doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time, but whatever floats your boat. Maybe if you yell it loud enough, enough times, everyone will conform to you. But probably not.
Jazz theory and jazz education reinvented music? Reinvented music concepts? Or is there simply people talking about things they know little about, and creating alternate realities without any basis background? There were always many kinds of music realities along the centuries, and many music realities around the globe. Yet, when it came about music theory, there was always only one. Sometimes, some people wrote treaties that had concepts that were proven wrong afterwards, and were therefore, corrected.

Is jazz using different notes, different systems, different instruments, sounds that aren't sounds?

Your post just reveals ignorance, snobbery and self indulgence.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

I see. Well, if you say so, it must be so. But let's get back to the subject, ok? There are colleges that teach jazz theory, and do indeed offer classes in "modal harmony",etc. Does that mean they're wrong and you're right? Again, probably not. Hard to imagine, I know, but it may be you who needs to adjust to reality, not the other way around.

Post

datroof wrote:I see. Well, if you say so, it must be so. But let's get back to the subject, ok? There are colleges that teach jazz theory, and do indeed offer classes in "modal harmony",etc. Does that mean they're wrong and you're right? Again, probably not. Hard to imagine, I know, but it may be you who needs to adjust to reality, not the other way around.
So, if there are colleges teaching it, they must be right, or so you say? Who am I to contest that? :dog: There are colleges teaching astrology, and colleges teaching theology. Yet there are people that don't believe in God, and astrology is not considered a science.

Who is wrong, and who is right? It's hard to think by your own head? What's your opinion on what I wrote? Where am I wrong? Or your only argument is "jazz is different"? Why is it that only in the jazz world do such "theories" arise?

The difference is that I know where things came from, how they evolved, and where we came from and where we got to. You seem to believe that things just "are".
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
datroof wrote:I see. Well, if you say so, it must be so. But let's get back to the subject, ok? There are colleges that teach jazz theory, and do indeed offer classes in "modal harmony",etc. Does that mean they're wrong and you're right? Again, probably not. Hard to imagine, I know, but it may be you who needs to adjust to reality, not the other way around.
So, if there are colleges teaching it, they must be right, or so you say? Who am I to contest that? :dog: There are colleges teaching astrology, and colleges teaching theology. Yet there are people that don't believe in God, and astrology is not considered a science.

Who is wrong, and who is right? It's hard to think by your own head? What's your opinion on what I wrote? Where am I wrong? Or your only argument is "jazz is different"? Why is it that only in the jazz world do such "theories" arise?
Those are good questions. Sounds like you've got some homework to do (no, I'm not going to do your homework for you). You're actually the contrarian here, so the burden is on you, not me. Start reading some jazz theory literature, and then get back to us with your findings. Good luck, Buddy.

Post

datroof wrote:
fmr wrote:
datroof wrote:I see. Well, if you say so, it must be so. But let's get back to the subject, ok? There are colleges that teach jazz theory, and do indeed offer classes in "modal harmony",etc. Does that mean they're wrong and you're right? Again, probably not. Hard to imagine, I know, but it may be you who needs to adjust to reality, not the other way around.
So, if there are colleges teaching it, they must be right, or so you say? Who am I to contest that? :dog: There are colleges teaching astrology, and colleges teaching theology. Yet there are people that don't believe in God, and astrology is not considered a science.

Who is wrong, and who is right? It's hard to think by your own head? What's your opinion on what I wrote? Where am I wrong? Or your only argument is "jazz is different"? Why is it that only in the jazz world do such "theories" arise?
Those are good questions. Sounds like you've got some homework to do (no, I'm not going to do your homework for you). You're actually the contrarian here, so the burden is on you, not me. Start reading some jazz theory literature, and then get back to us with your findings. Good luck, Buddy.
I already did, "buddy" :wink: The difference is that I know where things came from, how they evolved, and where we started and where we go to. You seem to believe that things just "are".
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
datroof wrote:
fmr wrote:
datroof wrote:I see. Well, if you say so, it must be so. But let's get back to the subject, ok? There are colleges that teach jazz theory, and do indeed offer classes in "modal harmony",etc. Does that mean they're wrong and you're right? Again, probably not. Hard to imagine, I know, but it may be you who needs to adjust to reality, not the other way around.
So, if there are colleges teaching it, they must be right, or so you say? Who am I to contest that? :dog: There are colleges teaching astrology, and colleges teaching theology. Yet there are people that don't believe in God, and astrology is not considered a science.

Who is wrong, and who is right? It's hard to think by your own head? What's your opinion on what I wrote? Where am I wrong? Or your only argument is "jazz is different"? Why is it that only in the jazz world do such "theories" arise?
Those are good questions. Sounds like you've got some homework to do (no, I'm not going to do your homework for you). You're actually the contrarian here, so the burden is on you, not me. Start reading some jazz theory literature, and then get back to us with your findings. Good luck, Buddy.
I already did, "buddy" :wink:
Obviously, you just enjoy arguing. And that's fine, but at least be honest about it.

Post

[/quote]Obviously, you just enjoy arguing. And that's fine, but at least be honest about it.[/quote]

Agreed.

fmr If you don't beleive me and don't like jazz read Vincent Persichetti's book. It's on page 31. There is also info about quartal harmony(a term he uses) . Anyone else is free to google "quartal aggregates" and see what comes up(the 3rd result is this thread). Then you can google "quartal harmony" or modal harmony. Of course the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. These things don't really exist.

Post

Chandlerhimself wrote:
datroof wrote: Obviously, you just enjoy arguing. And that's fine, but at least be honest about it.
Agreed.

fmr If you don't believe me and don't like jazz read Vincent Persichetti's book. It's on page 31. There is also info about quartal harmony(a term he uses) . Anyone else is free to google "quartal aggregates" and see what comes up(the 3rd result is this thread). Then you can google "quartal harmony" or modal harmony. Of course the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. These things don't really exist.
Basically anyone you quote on this is american. This seems to be an american thing. Honestly, I don't care. I tried to explain to you what modes are and where do they come from. What you do with them is basically not something that is of my concern - there aren't exactly "forbidden" things in music. But "teaching" things as truisms, without any historical background, any explanation of the origins and contextualization, and even any theoretical and musical justification. Basically you explain things are as you say they are "just because" you listen to someone doing that, or saying that. Regarding books, I pointed you to Messiaen book, which is far more important to me, and talks about modes in general, and his modes of limited transposition in particular (btw: You probably don't know that you are using something that was born from a wrong interpretation born in the XYth century of what modes were used and how (Glareanus and Zarlino). Things evolved very much in what concern ancient music during the second half of the XXth century, and many mistakes that existed in interpretation of it and its contest have been corrected - several concerning modes and modal music. Actually, the mistakes done with the modes were corrected in the late XVIIIth century. here, I took a quote from Wikipedia for you:

"In 1547, the Swiss theorist Henricus Glareanus published the Dodecachordon, in which he solidified the concept of the church modes, and added four additional modes: the Aeolian (mode 9), Hypoaeolian (mode 10), Ionian (mode 11), and Hypoionian (mode 12). A little later in the century, the Italian Gioseffo Zarlino at first adopted Glarean's system in 1558, but later (1571 and 1573) revised the numbering and naming conventions in a manner he deemed more logical, resulting in the widespread promulgation of two conflicting systems. Zarlino's system reassigned the six pairs of authentic–plagal mode numbers to finals in the order of the natural hexachord, C D E F G A, and transferred the Greek names as well, so that modes 1 through 8 now became C-authentic to F-plagal, and were now called by the names Dorian to Hypomixolydian. The pair of G modes were numbered 9 and 10 and were named Ionian and Hypoionian, while the pair of A modes retained both the numbers and names (11, Aeolian, and 12 Hypoaeolian) of Glarean's system. While Zarlino's system became popular in France, Italian composers preferred Glarean's scheme because it retained the traditional eight modes, while expanding them. Luzzasco Luzzaschi was an exception in Italy, in that he used Zarlino’s new system (Powers 2001, §III.4(ii)(a), (iii) & §III.5(i & ii)).

In the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, some chant reformers (notably the editors of the Mechlin, Pustet-Ratisbon (Regensburg), and Rheims-Cambrai Office-Books, collectively referred to as the Cecilian Movement) renumbered the modes once again, this time retaining the original eight mode numbers and Glareanus's modes 9 and 10, but assigning numbers 11 and 12 to the modes on the final B, which they named Locrian and Hypolocrian (even while rejecting their use in chant). The Ionian and Hypoionian modes (on C) become in this system modes 13 and 14 (Rockstro 1880, 342).

Given the confusion between ancient, medieval, and modern terminology, "today it is more consistent and practical to use the traditional designation of the modes with numbers one to eight" (Curtis 1997, 256), using Roman numeral (I–VIII), rather than using the pseudo-Greek naming system. Contemporary terms, also used by scholars, are simply the Greek ordinals ("first", "second", etc.), usually transliterated into the Latin alphabet: protus (πρῶτος), deuterus (δεύτερος), tritus (τρίτος), and tetrardus (τέταρτος), in practice used as: protus authenticus / plagalis.
"

There: This pretty much sums up to what have been the mess created involving modes, that started back in the XVIth century. Regarding what is designated as quartal harmony, I send you to the Wikipedia - there you may read basically what I wrote: It is not harmony in the sense you use it (or is commonly used) but rather a distinct and different way of organizing vertical structures, that, for reasons of clarity and differentiation, I usually call as quartal aggregates (withdrawing the term harmony to avoid confusions like the ones you make). Take note that any of the composers pieces mentioned are tonal.

If you search for modal harmony in Wikipedia, you find... nothing.
Last edited by fmr on Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Locked

Return to “Music Theory”