Modal Harmony vid series

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

Post

zethus909 wrote: the Cmajor scale is based on the Ionian mode. the Ionian Mode, is the Mother Mode of all the other modes. our piano is based around C major, the white keys are the notes of the Cmajor scale...the Cmajor scale is the same thing, interval-wise as the Ionian mode, the Ionian mode is the Cmajor scale, the Cmajor scale is what all the other classic modes are based off of. it's the root, or the Mother Tonic. these intervals are the same today as they were with the Greeks. and denying that "the classical modes are based on C major" is a most suspect act of denial. it is an act of denial that puts forward the notion of histrionics ABOVE geometric accuracy.

as mentioned i put the accuracy of PRINCIPLES at highest rank, in the ongoing dialogue of human history. and to deny that the "modes are based on the Cmajor scale" is, on the surface, a chide remark...in and of itself. for it places abstraction ABOVE that which IS. the act of denying this means to deny the very underlying principles that the Greeks realized.
What the f**ck are you talking about? Are you delusional? Having some sort of delirum? I've never seen so much nonsense concentrated in so little space. :dog:

Man, I already showed that there was NEVER a Ionian mode. There was NEVER a Ionian mode. It didn't exist, except in some theory books. So, how can C Major come from something that didn't exist? THINK

And the piano is based around C Major? :dog: OMG.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

zethus909 wrote:the Cmajor scale is based on the Ionian mode. the Ionian Mode, is the Mother Mode of all the other modes. our piano is based around C major, the white keys are the notes of the Cmajor scale...the Cmajor scale is the same thing, interval-wise as the Ionian mode, the Ionian mode is the Cmajor scale, the Cmajor scale is what all the other classic modes are based off of. it's the root, or the Mother Tonic. these intervals are the same today as they were with the Greeks. and denying that "the classical modes are based on C major" is a most suspect act of denial. it is an act of denial that puts forward the notion of histrionics ABOVE geometric accuracy.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
You are equating "white notes" with "C major" and "Ionian mode". They are not the same thing.

As I said before, it is a FACT that the modes predated the major-minor system by several centuries. Therefore the modes cannot possibly be based upon C major. The statement is not only factually incorrect, it makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying a calculator is based on an iPod.

Moreover, the major scale didn't actually come from the Ionian mode but from the Lydian mode which, in practice, usually contained a Bb to avoid the tritone with the root.

As fmr has also said, the Ionian mode isn't the "mother of all modes". Far from it. The term was invented centuries after the other modes and, as I said above, wasn't actually anything new in practice since it had already existed starting on F (with the Bb).

Nor is the piano "based on C major". Again, keyboard instruments predated tonality by centuries.

You need to be more careful with language. You might like to use C major as a reference point to help you remember the modes or whatever, that's fine. But you cannot say that the modes are "based" on C major because it simply isn't true, and nothing you can possibly say will ever change that.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.

Post

fmr wrote:
zethus909 wrote: the Cmajor scale is based on the Ionian mode. the Ionian Mode, is the Mother Mode of all the other modes.

as mentioned i put the accuracy of PRINCIPLES at highest rank, in the ongoing dialogue of human history. and to deny that the "modes are based on the Cmajor scale" is, on the surface, a chide remark...in and of itself. for it places abstraction ABOVE that which IS. the act of denying this means to deny the very underlying principles that the Greeks realized.
What the f**ck are you talking about? Are you delusional?
:help:
Holy f**k. Where does one GET such crap?! Incredibly pompous and pretentious while being entirely mistaken on every point, amounts to the height of arrogance on parade here.

How is finding permutations of a set NOT ABSTRACT? That's what you have to work with. But we've sinned against the Ancients. :scared:
That whole paragraph is pure word salad. Adjust yer meds, and soon.

Post

whatever. I don't even know what point I'm trying to make
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

fmr wrote: I think we all agree that what's being called "modal harmony" is, in fact, "tonal harmony", and doesn't need to be learned, because it's the same thing.
- and some of this is incompatible with modal thought, with making modal music.

Certain tendencies of tonality (I mean of the dominant/tonic system that rose up alongside tonality) tend to kill the very possibility of modal music. So an Indian musician has no particular need to learn it. I didn't fug with it 'til I felt I needed it.

Post

For those that share a real interest in modes, I post here a link to Yvonne Loriod (Messiaen's wife) playing "Quatre Etudes de Rhytme". This is a work that was offered to me by my composition teacher in college, when he saw that my writing was somehow resembling Messiaen (my influence was actually Debussy, and I was trying to go "over" what Debussy made). These pieces made a tremendous influence on me and my musical thought, and led me to deeply entered the modes universe, and learn everyhting that I could about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSISzURlwcc

These works include the famous "Mode de Valeurs et d'Intensités", which seems to have been the first completely serial piece of music (in what everything, from rhythm to pitches, durations and dynamics, was commanded by a series). Yet my favourite is the third piece (which starts at 5'39'') and is called "Neumes Rhythmiques". I also found a score online: http://en.scorser.com/I/Sheet+music/300191151.html

I also post a link to a lecture from Jonathan Diamond where he unveils some of Messiaen techniques, namely how the "Modes of Limited Transpositions" are built. It is a much lighter reading than Messiaen book, so, I also advise to study it. Anyone interested in opening horizons for their music will probably be interested in this. http://www.jonathandimond.com/downloada ... ssiaen.pdf

Finally, another reading: "L' imbroglio des modes" by Jacques Chailley. This was a book my teacher loaned to me then. I read it, but I still didn't buy it. It is one of the most important studies on this subject published "recently" (1960), IMO. I found this link, that posts to an article included in "Encyclopaedia Universalis" (french) that mentions that one: https://www.scribd.com/doc/237149356/mo ... rsalis-pdf I don't know how many of you can read french, but I can post a translation, at least from the part that talks about the western modes, if you want.
Last edited by fmr on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

zethus909 wrote:whatever. I don't even know what point I'm trying to make
:lol: Well, your tangent was impressively insane.

You seem to vault "principles" (IE: Ethics) above the simple facts.
[deleted totally redundant points]

Ionian as a mode in practice seems pretty rare. There is Bilaval Thaat in ICM (illustrative of the difference per 'major') and Watermelon in Easter Hay afaik.
/'Finding an example of Ionian Mode is like finding a watermelon in Easter hay'/

Post

Well, your tangent was impressive---
:harp: thank you, yea i can do that sometimes
Olivier Messiaen, Quatre études de rythme (Yvonne Loriod)
yea i can do this. this is what i do, when i close my eyes. and just play whatever i want, and not worry about anything. it's free jazz

its basically letting your hands express the energy that is in the ether at the time, your mood, and your perception of reality, this is what gets expressed. thats how i look at it. sometimes it will be really disjointed and dissonant, well most of the time....because thats usually how it feels, in the air, it feels like randomness, with just a bit of order. but the more you play, the more order starts to come from. check this out, i just composed this piece, couldnt play the same twice though. https://vid.me/hP3Y
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

zethus909 wrote: its basically letting your hands express the energy that is in the ether at the time, your mood, and your perception of reality, this is what gets expressed. thats how i look at it. sometimes it will be really disjointed and dissonant, well most of the time....because thats usually how it feels, in the air, it feels like randomness, with just a bit of order. but the more you play, the more order starts to come from it.
Good. It means you are entering in the logic of the piece. Study the score too. It helps.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:Besides, modes and modal music have a "plasticity" that is inherent to their spirit, and that was lost with the transition to modality. There is also more variety, since you have eight modes, and in tonal music you just have two, even if one of them has three variants. Composers like Debussy and Satie realized this "charm" and potential, and recovered that tradition. Composers like Bartok and Messiaen went further in the modal universe, and Messiaen even created a whole theoretical building around new modes, starting with the "whole tone mode" of Debussy (a really new universe, not changing names to what already existed - the whole tone mode is the first of his "modes of limited transpositions"). Miles Davis also realized it, and he also entered in this universe, as it is. It's no longer about "chords" or "harmony", it's all about "melodies" and "colours" and sounds. It's different, yet its wonderful. But to enter there, you need to "forget" chords and harmony, and simply concentrate on the "sound" of each note, and each melodic cell, and treat the "chords" as a sound of their own. Not a chord, more like a note that's made of several notes. And the "chord progressions" become a "melody of chords". You no longer have tonic, or dominant. Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such. It's the melody and the melodic sense that leads.
That's, for me at least, one of the most compelling argument why the use of "modal" or "modal harmony" when talking about modern "pop" music practices can be confusing. Maybe because I absolutely love Messiaen's music, and I can see how large the difference is between the two approaches.

Now, I get how we can see the use (in pop) of dorian, phrygian and co as alterations of major and minor, but I was under the impression that in many EDM and (melodic) electronic music, the functional aspect of tonal harmony is not present anymore. I was under the impression that in those genres (e.g. Psytrance), "any chord can follow any chord" is also true, and that there is no real dominant function, no cadences (probably because the chords are constantly looping, so any kind of punctuation would feel disruptive). Am I wrong? Would you say this is some kind of a-functional tonal harmony, or just that the functional aspect is very diluted, but still relevant?

Post

drakmaniso wrote: Now, I get how we can see the use (in pop) of dorian, phrygian and co as alterations of major and minor, but I was under the impression that in many EDM and (melodic) electronic music, the functional aspect of tonal harmony is not present anymore. I was under the impression that in those genres (e.g. Psytrance), "any chord can follow any chord" is also true, and that there is no real dominant function, no cadences (probably because the chords are constantly looping, so any kind of punctuation would feel disruptive). Am I wrong? Would you say this is some kind of a-functional tonal harmony, or just that the functional aspect is very diluted, but still relevant?
Well, I don't know that much EDM to be really able to say if your statement os true or not. But what I know of EDM (which is admitedly too little) seems to me strongly tonal. Yes, since sometimes they are transposing sequences, or manipulating loops, it may sound strange, and not making that much sense tonally (it doesn't make so much sense as jazz, for example).

I would say it's a different approach, due to the naïvety of the EDM producers (usually really young people, not even trained musicians most of time, just people that grew up manipulating recordings, which is essentially their training). They then develop a different kind of hearing, conducted by the "beat" (the rhythm), and the melodies and chords don't mean that much to them. Not that they want to alter the tonal universe, it's more a matter of aproaching something with the open mind of a child, and do it in a trial and error basis until something interesting (for tehm) appears. AFAIK, they usually start with a "beat" or a loop (which may be a beat also), and go forward from it.

I may end being unfair in this analysis, since, as I said, I'm not that much an EDM listener, but for what I know, this is my impression. Look, for example, how different the music of someone like Giorgio Moroder (which, in his time, did what we can consider was then EDM) with the current EDM. That was firmly tonal, because he was a trained musician. Or Kraftwerk. When they were not messing with the electronics, their music was very simple (even naïve), but firmly tonal.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:I would say it's a different approach, due to the naïvety of the EDM producers (usually really young people, not even trained musicians most of time, just people that grew up manipulating recordings, which is essentially their training). They then develop a different kind of hearing, conducted by the "beat" (the rhythm), and the melodies and chords don't mean that much to them. Not that they want to alter the tonal universe, it's more a matter of aproaching something with the open mind of a child, and do it in a trial and error basis until something interesting (for tehm) appears. AFAIK, they usually start with a "beat" or a loop (which may be a beat also), and go forward from it.
I see your point, and I think it describes well the situation as it was ten or fifteen years ago (though I think that, depending on the genre, the driving aspect can be either the rhythm or the sound design). I think now most producers have at least some basic knowledge on how to construct scales and chords and use them in a consistent way. However, I agree that melody and harmony are not the most involved aspect of this music, so maybe it's pointless to put too much theoretical thought about them...

Now, your point about 80s electronic music is precisely what I was getting at: these artists do sound much more tonal to my ear than modern productions, so I was wondering how to describe the current situation. Whether caused by a naive approach, limitation of hardware or plain disinterest, it seems to me that a part of current electronic music has stepped away from the functions and cadences of tonal harmony. I was just wondering if it was my lack of theoretical training that prevented me from perceiving these functions, or if it was a real evolution in sensibilities. From what you said, it's probably the former?

Post

My immediate impression of the thread title was bemusement ("vid series" no less) at more than one aspect* in the title. I'd just seen an interview with Paul McCartney on Youtube where he laughed at a review talking about "Aeolian cadences" in one o' his songs. Who knows what that even s'posed ta be...
*: fatuosity factor, for one, + there will be blood...

I don't think in blocks of chords usually (though I could, even in a definitely modal environment. But I'm about sonority and color, cf. fmr's Debussy ref.). First of all I primarily select monophonic type instruments, horns. The freedom of independent streams...

The upset we get pointing out that modes present a world apart from everything married to chords is that the musical naif is not ready and doesn't want that kind of freedom; all-chordal basis is more paint-by-numbers...

But "Modal Harmony" is meaningless.

Post

jancivil wrote:My immediate impression of the thread title was bemusement ("vid series" no less) at more than one aspect* in the title. I'd just seen an interview with Paul McCartney on Youtube where he laughed at a review talking about "Aeolian cadences" in one o' his songs. Who knows what that even s'posed ta be...
*: fatuosity factor, for one, & there'll be blood spilled...

I don't think in blocks of chords usually (though I could, even in a definitely modal environment. But I'm about sonority and color, cf. fmr's Debussy ref.). First of all I primarily select monophonic type instruments, horns. The freedom of independent streams...

The upset we get pointing out that modes present a world apart from everything married to chords is that the musical naif is not ready and doesn't want that kind of freedom; all-chordal basis is more paint-by-numbers...

But "Modal Harmony" is meaningless.
I suppose you know that Macca's comment refers back to 1963 when - it was said - for the first time "serious" music analyst William Mann of The Times, was analysing pop music. By analyzing Beatles Not a Second Time, he was citing the "Aeolian cadence" (Aeolian harmony) of Lennon's vocals as the song draws to a close, and noting that the same chord progression appears at the end of the final movement of Mahler's "Das Lied von der Erde.

Lennon, years later, remarked: "To this day, I have no idea what [Aeolian cadences] are. They sound like exotic birds."

According to Wikipedia, Mann was using here the
term "Aeolian cadence" is when a major key song resolves on the vi chord, which is the tonic chord of the relative minor key. The term derives from the fact that the Aeolian mode is rooted on the sixth step of the major scale.

BTW, Lennon & MacCartney are of course a textbook example of the self made composers who used almost all the most sophisticated classical music "tricks" or "methods" without knowing the names of what they did, without even reading notes. There are interesting article published based on that kind of analysis.

Post

Well, regardless of who Mr. Mann s'posed ta be, the term is bullshit and Macca had no use at all for such even if it was legit. "Major key :arrow: Aeolian cadence" really illustrates the fatuousness*, it sounds more knowledgeable than the (boring?) fact so it's better for the writer. :roll:
*: quite on point, tonality lingo forced on the modal term = nonsense

Sidebar, again reminded of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Locked

Return to “Music Theory”