Talk:Mode (music)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Minor second vs. diminished second

Given that both major (Ionian) and minor (Aeolian) have the same interval for a second – two steps on the 12-step scale – I propose that the second column of the table of Section 5.2 "Summary" have labels "perfect" (instead of "major", for modes including major and minor) and "diminished" instead of "minor" (for "Phrygian" and "Locrian"). The current labels are more confusing because the minor key has a major second. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since these interval names have been standard for more than a thousand years, I think you are going to find it an uphill battle to change them now. In any case, this page is not the place to start. You may wish first to read the article Interval (music).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer; I am learning that I am in this over my head. I have learned that only unisons, fourths, fifths, and octaves can be perfect, and that even though a second is the same in major and minor keys, the shared value is not considered something perfect that can be diminished. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the fault of the fact that we have adopted to considering the Aeolian mode the natural minor scale. Just as the article says, the Phrygian mode has a minor second. Georgia guy (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually makes a good deal of sense to consider the second degree to be variable in the minor scale, but surely the main form of the scale must allow for a perfect triad on the fifth degree and have a natural (not Neapolitan) supertonic. It would also make more sense to follow the French practice of regarding the harmonic minor as the basic form of the scale (because the dominant needs a leading tone to have its force), but sadly this isn't traditional among English-speaking theorists. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you can consider the reason for the names to be as such to be that both the major and minor scales contain seconds of two sizes (C–D is a major second, while E–F is a minor second). These seconds can be aurally identified as having the same meaning (a single step) despite this size, in about the same way as how we accept the asymmetry of triads containing one major and one minor third; they are both thirds. (This also creates a reasonable symmetry with their inversions, the major and minor sixths and sevenths.) To the contrary, the perfect fifth becomes much more dissonant if chromatically altered, and we cannot really identify the diminished and perfect fifths as having the same function under common-practice tonality. (Since under common-practice harmony the perfect fourth is a dissonance, I would be more in favour of reviving Mozart's nomenclature: E–A "minor fourth", F–B "major fourth", A–E "true fifth", B–F "false fifth". But this is likewise not going to happen.) Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

But the major scale also has fifths of two sizes; perfect and diminished. It also has two sizes of fourths; perfect and augmented. Only the unison and octave have only one size. Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said immediately above, the contexts in which the diminished and perfect fifths can be semi-identified as having the same function are significantly fewer than the many in which that can be done to the major and minor seconds and thirds. The main place where that is possible is in a sequence like the circle of fifths, and still that diminished fifth cannot be the last step in the sequence. So a greater distinction is warranted. Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The simplest way to think of interval qualities is:

Perfect intervals are the intervals based on the tonic and dominant of a major scale. The unison and octave have the tonic twice. The fifth is tonic to dominant; the fourth is dominant to (upper) tonic.

Major intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the major scale when the lower note is the tonic. C-D, C-E, C-A, and C-B are all major intervals.

Minor intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the major scale when the upper note is the tonic. B-C, A-C, E-C, and D-C are all minor intervals.

An augmented interval is a chromatic semitone higher than any interval that occurs in the major scale when the lower note is the tonic; that is, perfect or major.

A diminished interval is a chromatic semitone lower than any interval that occurs in the major scale when the upper note is the tonic; that is, perfect or minor.

Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that works and makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That is great as a mnemonic. Is it in Wikipedia somewhere? It sill bothers me that perfect is only primes, fourths, fifths, and octaves but not seconds, which also match on the major and minor scales – but that is what it is. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just see my post above. All intervals in the major scale where the lower note is the tonic are perfect or major. All intervals in the major scale where the upper note is the tonic are perfect or minor. Georgia guy (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My confusion arises because the minor intervals are Phrygian, but the minor mode is Aeolian. In other words, your rule can be restated with Phrygian: Minor intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the Phrygian scale when the lower note is the tonic. E-F, E-G, E-C, and E-D are all minor intervals. Major intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the Phrygian scale when the upper note is the tonic. D-E, C-E, G-E, and F-E are all major intervals. If the common minor mode were Phrygian then all of this would shake down more logically for me. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article with the hope that others will not be confused about the distinction between minor mode and minor intervals. If you find the edit lacking, please consider fixing it rather than reverting it, so that people like me have a chance at seeing this distinction. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that Sparafucil has reverted you; while I agree that fixing it would have been better, I think he raises an important point that you're implicitly assuming that the intervals start from the tonic. It isn't necessarily so: E–G is in the C major scale, between the 3rd and 5th degrees, but it's a minor 3rd, so saying that the major scale only contains major and perfect intervals is confusing if it's not explicitly stated that only intervals starting at the tonic are considered. Perhaps we could discuss further how to clarify this?

Anyway, you might be interested to know that the relationship you've pointed out occurs because the Phrygian mode is the inversion of the Ionian mode: that is, if you take the tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone sequence of Ionian, but go down instead of up (tone down, tone down, semitone down, and so on), you get Phrygian (going down instead of up). The result follows, since the inversion of a major interval is a minor interval and vice versa. The other modes also come in inversion pairs: Lydian–Locrian, Ionian–Phrygian, Mixolydian–Aeolian, and Dorian remains the same when inverted.

Perhaps you might also be interested to note that the reason why the minor mode isn't Phrygian is because to have a perfect cadence (V–I) and allow a sense of closure to the piece under tonality, you need a perfect triad on the 5th degree, and hence a perfect fifth from the 5th to the 2nd degree. Furthermore you also need the 7th degree to be a semitone below the 8th, like in the major scale, to have a real perfect cadence with a leading note; while considering Aeolian to be the natural form of the minor scale simplifies some things at first, it gets easier to explain most common-practice Western music if we consider the minor mode to have a major 7th by default (this is the harmonic minor scale, e.g. A–B–C–D–E–F–G♯–A). Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If either Sparafucil or Double sharp would be so kind as to modify the article with a better version of the edit that I tried to make, that could save quite a bit of my blundering around trying to incorporate the subtleties that probably I still don't fully understand. I am trying to make the edit in the first place because I think it is valuable to people like me who are trying to get a grasp on the relationship between major and minor in the distinct contexts of modes and intervals. If either of you or some other expert could explain that in the article, to people like me, then that would be much appreciated. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that you might be looking in the wrong place for this information; modes tend to be taught somewhat after the concept of intervals is well-understood, and so the article not unreasonably assumes that readers know about intervals already. There is an explanation of what "major" and "minor" mean for intervals at Interval (music)#Major and minor, where it ought to be. Actually I think the way that section looks at things is better, only considering the major scale as the basic diatonic scale. Could you take a look at it and see if it helps? Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your confusion, with major/minor variously referring to intervals and the thirds of triads (otherwise described by their augmented/diminished fifth degrees). But let's have some consideration for the scope of an article on mode: "Major mode" is used for the tonal relationships of the major key as well as for the major scale (identical with the Ionian mode), while minor mode is a mixture as explained at minor scale and gypsy scale. Sparafucil (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in the context of this article, the diatonic modes are also grouped into three "major" modes (Ionian, Lydian, Mixolydian), three "minor" modes (Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian), and one "diminished" mode (Locrian). Each of the first three have a major third above the tonic, each of the next three have a minor third, and the last has a diminished fifth above the tonic. I hope this will help make Sparafucil's point a little clearer: it is the third scale degree alone (that is, the third of the tonic triad) in each case that determines "major" or "minor" scale properties, with the assumption that the fifth is perfect; when the fifth is diminished instead of perfect, the third will be minor, but it is no longer the factor that determines the mode quality. The other scale degrees (second, fourth, sixth, seventh) may vary, within the limits posed by the diatonic pattern.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jerome might know better than me whether there is precedent ( and a possible reference) for grouping Ionian with Mixolydian & Lydian without use of scare quotes around "major". The "context of this article" is exactly what is at issue ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I look at the table in Section 5.2 of this article and notice immediately that Aeolian (minor) mode is not all perfects and minor intervals (from the tonic upwards), but that Phrygian is. In contrast a single mode, Ionian, is both the major mode and has all perfects and major intervals (from the tonic upwards). Because we include this table in this article, I would like a sentence nearby to point out that this correspondence for minor is not as straightforward as for major, and then either explain it or point to somewhere like Interval (music)#Major and minor for an explanation. I worry that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to carry this out, but I think it would add value to this article. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this specific language to be added to Section 5.2. Please suggest improvements.

The intervals shown in the above table for Ionian (major) mode are all perfect or major. It is not the case that the intervals shown for Aeolian (minor) mode are all perfect or minor, though that is the case for Phrygian mode. See major and minor intervals for more information.

64.132.59.226 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not get any feedback on this proposed language so I am going for BOLD, revert, and discuss. Please try to edit the article entry rather than fully reverting. If you must revert, please be responsible and also give a detailed reason here. Reasons like "it would be better if ..." are more useful than "it is bad because ..." because the former gives a good direction to try, but the latter eliminates only one of many directions as undesirable. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I have tagged the material as seemingly pointless. If what you are trying to say is that the three modes designated as "major" ought to have nothing but major and perfect intervals in them (above the tonic) and, correspondingly, the three "minor" modes ought to have nothing but minor and perfect intervals in them, then this needs to be made plain to the innocent reader. As it stands, it sounds like gibberish. What is wrong with the explanation given, that it is the quality of the third scale degree alone (and, by extension, the quality of the tonic triad) that is the reason for this classification?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What's special about the third that makes it the most important interval when it comes to major/minor classification?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jerome Kohl, thank you for your comments. The point I am trying to make is that if one guessed that Ionian mode is used for major keys because all its intervals from tonic to above are major or perfect, the table would seem to confirm that guess. However, if you then guessed that Aeolian mode is used for minor keys because all its intervals from tonic to above are minor or perfect, the table would not back that up. The hope is that anyone thinking along those lines will now know to look to major and minor intervals for an understanding of what is going on. (I think all this would be useful for the article, because I found myself making these guesses and then wondering what went wrong.) If you can think of a better way to convey this, please edit! 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Georgia guy: You ask a very good question, which goes straight to the problem Special:Contributions/64.132.59.226 is struggling with. It is necessary to understand that the whole business of classifying modes in groups of "major-like" or "minor-like" is taking the perspective of the modern major-minor system and projecting it backward onto the older modal schema of the church modes. However, this is also filtered through a "modern" understanding of "the seven modes", which is not the same thing as the earlier concept. For one thing, the modern modes are what we could call "absolutely" diatonic, whereas the church modes admit of some flexibility on certain scale degrees. The modern Lydian mode, for example, consists strictly of seven notes in an ascending interval pattern of T-T-T-S-T-T-S (where T = whole tone and S= semitone), starting from the referential tonic note. In the church modes, however, the Lydian may have this pattern, but more often displays T-T-S-T-T-T-S, exactly what is called "Ionian mode" in the modern scheme. Similarly, the sixth scale degree in Dorian is strictly a major sixth above the tonic in the modern system, but may be either major or minor in the medieval Dorian mode. Further, the seventh degree in the modern Dorian is always a minor seventh above the tonic, but in the medieval schema it is often altered to a major seventh for cadential purposes. This is also the case with the Mixolydian mode, which must have the minor seventh in the modern system, but as often as not uses a major seventh historically.

What all this has to do with the question raised by Georgia Guy is that, in the modern major-minor system, the minor scale differs (that is, absolutely differs) from the major only by the third scale degree. A semitone above the tonic is regarded as a chromatic deviation in both major and minor, and major sixth and seventh scale degrees do not by themselves rule out the minor key (the so-called "melodic" and "harmonic" minor scales demonstrate this). As the article explains (somewhere), when the "old modes" were revived in the 19th century, it was necessary to treat them more strictly than they ever were in the 16th century or earlier, for the simple reason that the Lydian mode (for example) could not otherwise be differentiated from the major scale. Indeed, the reverse is also true: the modern major system routinely departs temporarily from the "strict" Ionian mode, in order to create local inflections toward the dominant (by raising the fourth scale degree) or toward the subdominant (by lowering the seventh degree), thus producing the temporary appearance of the Lydian and Mixolydian modes in a major-key context. More obviously, the minor key possesses both the major and minor sixth ("Dorian" and "Aeolian", respectively), leaving only the Phrygian and Locrian out of the picture. This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I think it is sufficient to make the point: the only stable element that differentiates the major key from the minor is the third scale degree.

Justifying Phrygian as a "minor-like" mode is also sometimes done by observing the positions of the two semitones in each scale. The highest pair of positions is between degrees 4–5 and 7-8 (modern Lydian), next-highest between 3-4 and 7-8 (Ionian), then 3-4 and 6-7 (Mixolydian), and so forth. The sequence ends with the Phrygian (semitones between 1-2 and 5-6) and, finally, Locrian (semitones between 1-2 and 4-5). It is claimed (and you may judge for yourself by comparing the sound examples) that this creates a continuum from "brightest" (Lydian) to "darkest" (Locrian), with a divide between the brightest three and darkest four modal scales. By this logic, Locrian is also a "minor-like" mode and, indeed, its third scale degree is a minor third above the tonic.

Now, how much of this do you reckon really belongs in the article? Some of it is already there, but perhaps not enough? I don't think it would be very difficult to find reliable sources for the material not already present.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing the whole paragraph about "all major/minor" from the article. Scales are called major minor based on their root triad, not any other notes in the scale. The observation is correct that the default major/minor (Ionian/Phrygian) scale has all major/minor or perfect intervals from the root. However this is not a recognised element in music theory. So it is very close to original; research. −Woodstone (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a very small point, perhaps, but Phrygian is not the default minor scale. This is just what has confused 64.132.59.226, who believes (quite correctly) that this should logically be the default, instead of Aeolian. Music theory, unfortunately, is very often not as logical as it might be. The "root" (that is, tonic) triad notion is valid, as far as it goes but, as I tried to make clear, it is not necessary to invoke triadic harmony to explain why the third scale degree is sufficient to differentiate these two broad (if somewhat sloppily conceived) categories. The triadic concept only really becomes essential if one cares to exclude the Locrian mode from the "minor-like" category. The only problem I can see with removing the "major/minor" groups of modes from this article is that it does come up quite often in the literature, especially in writing aimed at relative beginners. Deleting this discussion would avoid the difficulty of clearly explaining it, but at the expense of denying willing learners the answer to a question many of them are going to bring with them to this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I goofed up compressing my sentences too much. The I did understand the asymmetry in the naming. Default major Ionian is all major/perfect. Default ~minor Aeolian is not all minor/perfect, but instead Phrygian is. The only part I propose to remove is the one sentence (plus a reference) marked for doubtful relevance. −

Would that be the paragraph beginning "The intervals (above the respective tonics) shown in the above table for Ionian mode, ..."? This is the paragraph recently added by 64.132.59.226, meant to clarify the point he/she found confusing. That sentence does not have a reference, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I mean the paragraph "The intervals (above the respective tonics) shown ... is the case for Phrygian mode. See major and minor intervals for more information". With reference I meant the "See ..." part, not a valid WP reference. I do not see how this paragraph lessens any confusion, and it does not resonate with recognised music theory. −Woodstone (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Woodstone. Yes, I agree that it does not resonate with recognized music theory. That is something I didn't understand at first and I want the article to teach that to other readers. If you can make the wording more musically correct that would be great, but please do preserve it in some form that teaches what I needed to learn. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Redesigning the visual examples in the 'Analysis' section

In the Analysis section there are seven writen examples of the modes.

I think all of these examples should show the mode starting both on C and also on the note that they all start on now. (ie. C Ionian, C & D dorian, C & E phygian, etc.).

This way the reader can simulatiusly deduce two things

• the differences between the mode and the ionian scale
• that all the modes are diatonic to eachother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.84.46 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Incomprehensibility

Although I have studied music theory and can play music, I must say I find large parts of this article incomprehensible, in particular the first section "Mode as a general concept". This general introduction to the subject needs to be rewritten by someone who (a) knows how to write clear English and (b) knows how to explain things in simple terms to the layman. The first sentence of that paragraph in particular, is just gobbledegook: "Regarding the concept of mode as applied to pitch relationships generally, Harold S. Powers proposed mode as a general term but limited for melody types, which were based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species called tonos (τόνος) or harmonia (ἁρμονία), with "most of the area between ... being in the domain of mode" (Powers 2001, §I,3)." To someone who has spent three years studying musical theory and history at university, this may be as clear as crystal, but to the layman or laywoman for whom Wikipedia is supposed to be being written, it makes no sense at all. Though the reader may click on melody types and read what it says there, it doesn't help at all, since it is equally obscure. Let us have the introduction rewritten in much simpler terms, with beginners in mind, not people who are already advanced in the subject. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to this, Kanjuzi. If it is any comfort to you, I have spent considerably more than three years studying music theory and history at university, and I can make no more sense of that sentence than you can. Worried that I might have accidentally been responsible for the gobbledy-gook (since I have edited this article sporadically for some years now), I checked the edit history, where I discovered to my relief that I was not, and that, up until this edit on 31 October 2015, the passage in question read: "Regarding the concept of mode as applied to pitch relationships generally, Harold S. Powers proposed mode as a general term for melody types which were based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species called tonos (τόνος) or harmonia (ἁρμονία) with 'most of the area between ... being in the domain of mode'". Hampered as I am by all those years sitting in music theory classes, this is very nearly comprehensible to me—certainly it makes better sense than the revision—but I would like to know whether you think reverting to that earlier version be a move in the right direction and, if so, how much further in that direction do we still need to go?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that earlier version is certainly better; but I think you need to go much further in simplification, in view of the fact that this is the introduction to the subject. For example, who was Harold Powers, and why are his views worth quoting? When he says "most of the area between", the reader asks "between what two things?" What does "based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species" mean? How do you "interpret" an octave species, and what does it mean to interpret one "modally" – notice that we are trying to define what the word "mode" means, and we are doing so by using the word itself in the definition! It doesn't mean anything to me. Also I think a layman would say "types of musical scale" rather than "octave species". (I had never heard of the latter term before.) We seem here to have dropped in halfway through a music theory class where the views of Harold Powers are being discussed, but the part which explained the earlier or traditional definition, which Powers is modifying, is missing. Another difficulty with the sentence is that "species" is here plural, but τόνος and ἁρμονία which supposedly translate it are singular; it should say τόνοι and ἁρμονίαι, but really these terms are not necessary here; they should be given later when you come to discuss what "mode" means when applied to ancient Greek music. What is needed here, before giving Powers' definition or refinement of the definition, is to explain in simple terms, as it were for an intelligent teenager who has studied the piano or another instrument, what the usual meaning of "mode" is. – Another point is that the meaning of symbols not usual in traditional music, such as the double flat or backwards-facing flat, should be explained both here and in the article on Octave species. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC) – Here is an example of simple language which most people can understand (from an article on Music in the Oxford Classical Dictionary): "The most striking difference between the music of the Greeks and that to which western Europeans are accustomed is that the ancient art made use of a large number of scales or modes, which, in the view of most authorities, differed from each other in the sequence of the intervals composing them and (probably) in tonality. It was to these modes that the Greeks attributed the varying ethical effects of music...." You'll see that the writer doesn't use any difficult technical terms, except perhaps for "tonality", whose meaning is not clear to me. This is the sort of level of language we should be aiming for, I think. It is clear from this quotation that the writer uses the word "mode" simply to mean one of the various scales used in Greek music. He goes on to explain that Greek music differed from both Gregorian plainchant and modern music by using intervals that were not equal, unlike the semitones on a piano, and the intervals were sometimes as narrow as a quarter tone. All this is easy for a school student to understand. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. I can see that at some point an edit must have been made, removing some essential matter from the Powers quotation, which in full reads: "mode can be defined as either a ‘particularized scale’ or a ‘generalized tune’, or both, depending on the particular musical and cultural context. If one thinks of scale and tune as representing the poles of a continuum of melodic predetermination, then most of the area between can be designated one way or another as being in the domain of mode." Even this might not be as clear as one might like, but at least it does explain what those things are between which the "domain of mode" falls. It would not occur to me to have to explain who Harold Powers was, and there is of course a link to his biographical article, but I can see that some clarificationof his status might be in order here. One problem I see with starting from the Oxford Classical Dictionary definition is that it will have to be progressively undone as the discussion proceeds, since almost everything in it is at least a distortion of what Powers has to say, if not a direct contrdition. The chief problem is that the Greeks did not have "modes", but rather a group of concepts describing pitch relationships, which together may (or may not) add up to the ideas that later coalesced under the term. I admit that this is a difficult place to start an article like this, but it is equally difficult to tell the reader that x, y, andz are the basic concepts, only then to explain in turn why each of these concepts are wrong. As for the term tonality, you might like to have a look at the talk page for the article on that subject, where you will see that this has been a morass of disussion for several years now, with little forward progress. The problem seems to be that "everyone knows" what the word means, and they use it as if that were true, whereas in fact there are at least ten different senses of the word, some of which differ significantly from one another. Perhaps the solution here would be to find which of those senses is the one intended, and then substitute the description of that sense for the word "tonality".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Kanjuzi and others have made the clear and valid point here. As a studied musician who has made a life's work of it for the last 30+ years I found the bulk of this article to be incoherent and almost useless as a modern definition. My familiarity of Powers actually left me even more confused as to why so much of the article was based on his references. Surely there is a place in the article for archaic Greek music, the tempered scale, and Powers. But if the goal here is consistency, it is my opinion that the article would better serve the general community if it followed the style of other Wikipedia articles and began with a simple definition of the basic 7 modes as they exist today and are studied throughout the world (including Greece and India) and the bulk of the current article was boiled down to the coherent bits and included as footnotes, historical material, and further study reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotzauerbus (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I too have studied music(ology) (Musikwissenschaften: magister artium phil. mus.) and felt quite happy about the fact, that there is no german version of this Mode(music)-wikipedia article. Whilst reading I found all the misconceptions I expected to encounter. An article 'tonality' must suffice to convey everything people nowadays assume to be modality in music. About the word itself I'd like to tell a little theory of my professor: the word modus is most likely the saxonian/thuringian pronounciation of motus (Deutschland - i.e. Germany - was spelled Teutschland until reformation changed the actual vernacular), so when Bachs sons reported their fathers admonition to play this and that 'in a certain modus' (inn eynem gwissen modus), he most likely spoke about rhythmic mannerism and executional phrasing. Nevertheless, the modi of sacral music existed (modus plagalis deuterus a.s.o.) side by side with all their theoretical ambiguity. --78.54.210.49 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Article is white-washed version of Music Modes

Article should be named: "Popular Western Music Modes" The article (like many on Wikipedia) is obviously edited by persons who are either ignorant of the Egyptian, Nubian, Persian, Arabic, Indian (Indus Valley) musical accomplishments, or by editors who are attempting to spread a "white-washed version" of musical history purposefully distorting the true frequencies of human development regarding music.

1. The majority of ancient Greeks studied in KHM / Khemet Egypt for years and learned architecture, music, optics, math, spirituality, etc. Then upon return to Greece, utilized this, and their previous wisdom. Ancient Greeks (and Romans), unlike today's modern humans, were not racist based on skin color. We project that white supremacy onto them. 2. Ptolemy (friend of Alexander the so-called Great) took over Egypt and infused black Egyptian music styles into his music (along with his Greek music understanding). 3. When Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula, they took their Northern African and Arabian music, along with Math, architecture, etc. Due to capitalistic intentions of the "Scramble For Africa" most people today, even many so-called scholars and article editors, are promoting white supremacy overtly, covertly, etc. Humanity must teach truth not lies, if we are to truly evolve and empower ourselves. 4. Modern American music all comes from black slave music, black RnB, Blues. Rock, Pop, Country all have black foundations that are ignored by white supremacists. (See groups such as Death, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Little Richard, Negro Spirituals, African slave songs, etc.) 2604:2000:DDC7:1700:1DA9:B5F5:D121:5EC2 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the article? Hyacinth (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that all Ancient Greek people where the same, and to claim that they where all the same seems racist. If the Ancient Greeks where colorblind then how would they have created a historical record which shows that they went to Egypt and sought out the black/African Egyptians among the Mediterranean Basin/Middle Eastern Egyptians? Hyacinth (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Scored modes

See also: #A diagram showing all modes, #What Wikipedia is not..., #Modes transposed to a common tonic of A, and #Redesigning the visual examples in the 'Analysis' section

The eight musical modes. f indicates "final" (Curtis (1997), p.255).

A diagram showing all modes

User:Hyacinth added a scored scale for all modern modes to the lead. This is a duplication of the scored scales already present further down in the article, except they are all starting from C. First of all we should wonder if this modified duplication has enough merit to be kept. If so, then they should be rewritten in the more common from where the accidentals go in the signature. Lastly, to make the structure more clear, they should be listed according to the circle of fifths, starting from one 1 sharp to 5 flats. −Woodstone (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A duplication is exactly the same; the scales I added to the lead are similar or redundant, but not duplicate. The average reader is not trained to do ad hoc transposition in their head (without doing the math and writing it down), so a list of modes on the same note is of value to people without music theory degrees or addictions. The modes are number I-VII, so that is a pre-existing ordering; what knowledge would an ordering by the circle of fifths impart, aside from the dominance/priority/normality of the major scale? The final of the white note versions of the modes are listed multiple times in the article. Hyacinth (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just asking for opinions on whether this redundancy is worthwhile. I did not state mine yet. There is great additional clarity by ordering in the circle of fifths, combined with denoting the accidentals as signature. The first mode has just one sharp, the second one has no flats or sharps, the third has one flat, and then one flat more for each next one. The sharp and flats that appear are the in same combinations as for the common harmonic major scales. −Woodstone (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment seemed critical or as putting words in your mouth. Questions are good. I'd suggest a source or sources which lists the modes by the circle of fifths be found and added to the article, if not already present, in order to explain to readers why the numbers are not out of order out of order: IV, I, V, II, VI, III, VII, IV.

Should the subsections of #Analysis be reordered?

Should the images in #Greek scales that currently use accidentals use key signatures instead?

@Jerome Kohl: Any thoughts? Hyacinth (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you ask, I don't see how key signatures could reasonably be applied to the Greek scale examples, since key signatures as they are understood today are rigidly diatonic, and the only Greek examples given that involve accidentals are the non-diatonic genera. As to the modern modes, I have to confess that I am totally confused by Woodstone's association of key signatures with specific numbered modes. A key signature of one sharp, for example, represents seven modes, unless we are speaking of a single referential tonic (presumably, C). If this is the case, how does Lydian come to be numbered I, Ionian II, Mixolydian III, and so on? I gather that the numbers refer to a system in which C major (Ionian) is regarded as primary, and therefore given the Roman numeral I, and the other numbers correspond to the scale degrees of C major. If this is true, then what is the matter with treating them in numerical order? If this is not true, is there a reliable source for numbering these modern modes (as opposed to the "medieval" church modes) some other way?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to user:Jerome Kohl; the seven modern modes are already present in the article as white note scales. The idea of user:Hyacinth was to add all modern mode's scales starting from C, to bring out the differences more clearly. In that specific case they naturally get signatures from one sharp to 5 flats. What is more logical than to order them in a sequence where the signature changes by just one accidental. I have always seen the roman numerals to stand for the modes as mnemonics, not as serious denotations. I do not propose renumbering, just ordering them more logically for display. −Woodstone (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion sort of stranded. In my view ordering by the white note scale makes no musical sense. When one compares modes starting from the same base note, the signature of the mode is much more enlightening, and it is naturally ordered by the number (and type) of accidentals. −Woodstone (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, so how is it that Lydian (in this case with one accidental, F-sharp in the signature) is numbered I, Ionian (with no accidentals in the signature) is numbered II, and so on? Apart from that, should C Lydian come before or after C Mixolydian? They each have one accidental in the signature. I assume there is a reliable source for this, which might clear up the confusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The numbering is a mnemonic and only makes sense if one assumes that the Ionian scale has some special standing. The ordering by signature brings out the differences between the scales. Each succeeding scale differs in just one note from the preceding one. So from Lydian to Ionian just one sharp (F#) is canceled. From Ionian to Mixolydian, one flat (Bb) is introduced and so on. The sequence in which these accidentals appear follows the circle of fifths (in reverse). I was taught it this way in my music theory class 50 years ago. I do not have those references at hand. It might be searchable.−Woodstone (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. The problem is that the article currently numbers the modes differently, although I do not see a source verifying Ionian as I, Dorian as II, Phrygian as III, etc. Furthermore, near the end of the "Modern modes" section, in the "Summary", the modes are ordered in the way you suggest, only without numbering. Nevertheless, there is the sentence beginning "The first three modes are sometimes called major ...", and those "first three" are shown in a table to be Lydian, Ionian, and Mixolydian. This is the first claim in the entire section that cites any sources, and there is a "citation needed" tag on the Locrian mode. Perhaps we should begin by checking Carroll 2001, Marx 1852, and Serna 2013, to see whether any of them number these modes. In the meantime, I am going to mark the rest of this section as lacking citations. I cannot now recall how I was first taught the modes, but it sounds like we must be about the same age. The most likely text in my case would have been Allen Forte's Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice (first edition, 1962), though I also had Walter Piston's and Percy Goetschius's introductory texts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You may notice that the "analysis" section starts with the phrase The Ionian mode may arbitrarily be designated the first mode. That says it all. There is no musical logic to this designation. Each subsequent scale having just one note lowered by a half step brings a natural musical order. Unfortunately, I moved to a far away country and discarded practically all my books. So I can only source via internet. −Woodstone (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have lived in one of your "far-away countries" for most of my life. The problem here is that even the word "arbitrarily" needs a citation. There may be a persuasive argument (cited to a reliable source, of course) that D♭ is logically the best place to begin.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Given a well established numbering for the 8 church modes, is it not rash to repurpose Roman or Arabic numerals, even if there were a 'reliable' source? In the first #Modern modes table "Tonic relative to major scale" could just as well be labeled "Tonic relative to C major scale" and ordered C-G, A-B, or even A-G. Sparafucil (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention two different numbering schemes for the twelve modes of the post-1547 period.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Layout

There is an editorial disagreement about the ordering of sections of this article. Some editors believe that it would be best to begin with the "modern" modes, and only afterward go into the history. This is certainly a defensible position. However, as it stands, the "modern modes" section is mostly Original Research (or, at least, lacks citations to reliable sources), and it is confusing to have the occasional reference to the historical modes before that material has been presented. (For example, the second sentence: "Although the names of the modern modes are Greek and some have names used in ancient Greek theory for some of the harmoniai, the names of the modern modes are conventional and do not indicate a link between them and ancient Greek theory, and they do not present the sequences of intervals found even in the diatonic genus of the Greek octave species sharing the same name." I would like to hear some opinions, first, on the utility of starting with the modern modes and, second, what can be done about the sorry state of this section, regardless of whether it precedes or follows the historical material.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is already a mess, and I doubt anyone who isn't already extremely well-versed in music theory can get anything out of it. Moving the the "modern modes" section to right after the LEDE, as I did[1], at least gives people a chance of deciphering the rest of the article. Is it a perfect solution? No. Does the section need citations? Yes. (Is is original research? Absolutely not; just about any textbook on music theory could be used as a citation.) Unfortunately, I don't have the time, motivation, or easy access to sources to do anything more than I've already done. I won't edit-war/revert, but I do stand by the edit and I think it moved the article in the right direction. I would suggest moving this section back to the top, removing the word "however" from the first sentence, removing the entire second sentence, and then adding references from whatever music theory 101 textbooks people have on their bookshelves. (Alas, I gave mine away...) Yilloslime (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem of the Modern modes section, IMO, is not so much its position as its content. A few remarks:

• "The modern Western modes [...] consist merely of seven scales related to the familiar major and minor keys."

Isn't it the other way around, that "the familiar major and minor keys" are related to these modes? Such modes are usually called "diatonic modes", and modern modes certainly include many others, including the seventy-two so called "carnatic modes", Messiaen's seven modes of limited transposition (and their truncations; the total is sixteen, unless I am mistaken), the harmonic major scale (also known as Rimsky mode), and many others used by Fauré, Debussy, Messiaen, by jazzmen and others. And there is no reason, in the 21st century, to reduce modern modes to Western ones, because Arabic jazz, for instance, may interest Western listeners. The diversity of the modern modes is a strong argument against placing this section before a solid explanation of what a mode is.

• "Although the names of the modern modes are Greek and some have names used in ancient Greek theory [etc.]

This certainly does not make things simpler. The modern names of the modes date from the Renaissance (Glareanus), with some (rare) antecedents in the Middle Ages. To say more than that (e.g. about the Greek harmoniai, or about the "imbroglio" of the modes) is useless and confuses things.

• "Modern Western modes use the same set of notes as the major scale, in the same order"

This is neither the set of notes of the major scale – it merely is the diatonic set – nor the order of the major scale – it merely is the ascending (or descending) order that pertains to the definition of a scale.

• "The interval sequence of the major scale being W–W–H–W–W–W–H, where "H" means a semitone (half step) and "W" means a whole tone (whole step)"

It seems to me (but I could be mistaken) that a majority of WP articles would describe this scale as being T–T–S–T–T–T–S, where "S" means a semitone and "T" means a tone. This notation has a history of about a thousand years or more.

• "Analysis"

This is not an "analysis" of the (diatonic) modes, but a mere description. In addition, it says nothing that cannot be derived from the definition of a diatonic scale and from the tables already given. This is a lot of space for a minimum of information. In addition, I find it extremely confusing to number the modes in Roman numerals. Once again, this goes against an ancient tradition.

• "Summary"

I did not know that the "prime" was an interval and I fail to see what "perfect prime" may mean.

• "in modern practice the Aeolian mode is differentiated from the minor by using only the seven notes of the Aeolian scale"

If this is not a pleonasm, I never saw one.

• "Much Flamenco music is in the Phrygian mode, though frequently with the third and seventh degrees raised by a semitone"

This is another example of a "modern Western mode" that does not fit their description as diatonic modes. This Flamenco music mode is also called Hungarian mode, Gipsy mode, or ... Hijaz, which is not really Western (see Phrygian dominant scale).

Etc. This section certainly needs a lot of work. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Lock Fridge Door Mix Lid

In order Locrian (weird), then Phrygian ('heavy minor'), Minor, Dorian ('light minor'), then Mixolydian ('folky major'), Major, Lydian ('spacey major').
Mnemonic: Lock fridge (min) door, mix (maj) lid.
Lock fridge - door, mix + lid.
Acorrector (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Modifications to the article

I begin modifications to the article. These I think must be justified here.

• I added a mention of medieval rhythmic modes. These would deserve a section in the article, but that will be for later. I also indicated that the term had denoted intervals, or qualities of notes.
• I removed the phrase saying that musical modes "were inspired by the theory of ancient Greek music", because that is not true (even if it has at times been believed).
• I also removed the mention of "ancient Greek octave species called tonos (τόνος) or harmonia (ἁρμονία)" which, unless I am mistaken, are not in Powers 2001.
• And I reworded the rest of the phrase: "Harold S. Powers proposed mode as a general term but limited for melody types [...], with "most of the area between ... being in the domain of mode" seemed somehow incomplete. I completed Powers' quotation.
• I removed "This synthesis between tonus as a church tone and the older meaning associated with an octave species was made by medieval theorists for the Western monodic plainchant tradition (see Hucbald and Aurelian)" because I don't understand which synthesis was alluded to (certainly not that of Powers just mentioned), nor what "older meaning" (of "mode"?) is meant, nor why Hucbald and Aurelian are mentioned in this context.
• I remain puzzled by the following mention and the reference to Wellesz (and by the idea that musicologists "generally assume"...). Wellesz may have had an ideological position in all this. I have first to check that and I'll stop there for the time being.

But any comment about all this will be welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I continue my rereading and rewriting of the article, this time of the section "Mode as a general concept."

• I removed this sentence: "Musicologists generally assume that Carolingian theorists imported monastic Octoechos propagated in the patriarchates of Jerusalem (Mar Saba) and Constantinople (Stoudios Monastery), which meant the eight echoi they used for the composition of hymns" and the reference to Wellesz that followed. After verification, Wellesz' article in vol 2 of the New Oxford History of Music never mentions Carolingian theorists. In addition, neither Mar Saba nor the Stoudios Monastery are mentioned in the whole volume.
• I modified the phrase "Since the end of the 18th century, the term "mode" has also applied to pitch structures in non-European musical cultures, sometimes with doubtful compatibility" in order to better reflect what is said by Powers in the New Grove.
• I added precisions to the early mention of mode in polyphony.
• And I moved from the lede the references for rhythmic modes, mode denoting intervals and mode denoting quality of notes.

I am not sure that this section must survive, under this name at least. But that is for later. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements!

The lede is really inadequate as it now stands. It might be rewritten to take account of tonoi and distinguish diatonic modes ("a type of musical scale") gregorian modes ("with characteristic … behaviours"), rhythmic mode, modus in mensural notation. Or, the article might be renamed diatonic modes with mode (music) more of a disambiguation page. Sparafucil (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see a fork already: Diatonic scale. Sparafucil (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparafucil:, you are right that the lede is inadequate as it stands, and I should perhaps not have begun there. It seems to me however that the title "Mode (music)" is the most general: the article deserves more than being reduced to a disambiguation page because it has to say things that concern modes in general – and, on the other hand, the matter of "mode" may perhaps not deserve being distributed in many different articles.

It would seem to me more reasonable that sections be devoted to "Rhythmic modes", to "Modes as intervals" or "Modes as qualities of notes", also to non European modes (which are only alluded to in the section on Analogues in different musical traditions), and should link to other articles only if these already exist. For instance, there are general things to be said about non European modes, which hardly could be said in separate articles concerning any of them.

You write that the lede should take account of tonoi: don't you mean tonus, which is not the same? Modes have little if anything to do with Greek tonoi, while the Latin tonus has been used as a name for modes (but this is not for the lede). Diatonic modes are but a special case of modes. Etc. There's a lot of work to be done on this article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I at first took your tonus for the singular of tonoi rather than psalm tone. I don't think it can be excluded from lede, and wish I had worked in Octave species as well. Sparafucil (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)