>Although the art repertoire indeed became Major/minor, the training with >the church modes remained quite traditional. Composers learned with Fux >well into the nineteenth century (and again in the late twentieth century: >indeed, the fashionable Schenkerian training is fundamentally Fuxian)
The rules of counterpoint certainly continued to be taught (and still are, no?), but most apply equally well to tonal music. The Well-Tempered Clavier is not modal! And surely the concepts of chord progressions and key relationships have been far more fundamental in musical training.
>(I don't know quite what to say about the German chorale >tradition where old, distinctively modal melodies are harmonized tonally -
.. thereby producing tonal music!! Perhaps we're using different definitions of tonality, but the one I know defines it in terms of key centers, chord progressions, and modulation, not melody. Since you often put "modal" in quotes, I'm not sure what you mean by it. Are you saying that Schumann wrote pieces that do not modulate or use chordal (tonal) harmony?
I do need to beat a retreat from my hasty generalization about the use of modes ("well, hardly ever"...), especially regarding 20th century music, but I remain unconvinced that modes have ever returned as the *basis* of music theory or compositional styles in the Western classical tradition.
Bill Alves wrote:
>I don't see why refering to major and minor as modes is misleading. In my >definition of modes in the European tradition, they include at least the >following defining characteristics: >[...snip...] >3) A tonal center within that subset.
Are you just referring to the _final_ of the mode, or do you really mean "tonal center" defined harmonically? Because that is the defining distinction between modes and keys. A key is not just a set of notes - it is determined by chordal structure rather than melodic formulae.
Gordon Collins
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 23 May 1997 23:00 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08896; Fri, 23 May 1997 23:00:01 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 23:00:01 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08893 Received: (qmail 21359 invoked from network); 23 May 1997 20:59:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 May 1997 20:59:54 -0000 Message-Id: <3385784A@fsdsmtpgw.fsd.jhuapl.edu> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Well, right now I have my synth tuned in a very interesting 11-limit >lattice, and when I play the white keys from C to C it certainly doesn't >sound like any kind of major scale I would recognize.
What you've got there is not a major scale. But a major scale is a major scale is a major scale whether a whole tone is 9/8, 10/9, (5/4)^(1/2), 2^(1/6), or something in between.
Or whether the scale is 1/1 9/8 44/35 4/3 3/2 176/105 66/35 2/1. This is 11-limit according to at least one definition I've seen (yet another terminology problem plaguing this list). (Actually, I haven't had a chance to listen to this one, but all the ratios are within the ranges bounded by 5-limit JI and 12TET for the corresponding notes.)
>This is one real problem with most theory books (by which I assume you >primarily mean harmony books) but I won't get into that. The reason that >they don't go into it is because 12TET is assumed as a standard now. They >don't go into a lot of the "why's," not because they aren't important, but >just because they want to take a lot of things as given in order to get on >to the business of augmented sixth chord arcana. However, in many theory >books of pre-12TET period, tuning is discussed as a prerequisite to the >study of harmony.
The point is, those augmented sixth chord arcana are more important *to understanding the music* than are the details of the tuning. In an era when everyone tuned their own way, composers did not specify tuning instructions with their music. That's why you see raging debates about J. S. Bach's desires for the WTC.
Rameau, for instance, wrote his Treatise on Harmony when JI was not in use. Yet he gave integer ratios for the various intervals - not one, but *two* ratios for most of them. He then went on to say that the (syntonic) comma is inaudible and proceeded to ignore the difference in the rest of his Treatise. Later (if I recall correctly) he advocated ET without, presumably, any effect on his theories. It is clear that the ratios themselves were merely an explanation for the origin of consonance and dissonance.
Modern players don't play in 12TET *per se*, they play *in tune* with each other. Most of the time that results in 12TET because a piano is being used. But a good choir will experience comma shifts when a capella and if string players are playing along with a 1/4CMT harpsichord, they'll match it without thinking about it.
>Yes, perhaps accepting enharmonic equivalence was >an important step in European music. Personally, I think it was a step >conceptually taken long before the 18th century and the use of 12TET [....]
The idea was certainly considered earlier, but the persistence of non-circulating tunings and of split-key keyboards through the 17th century prove that it was not accepted until then.
>[T]he ability to [hear a diatonic scale] in a system is part of what I >meant by "recognizably diatonic" when refering to the flexibility of >tuning systems in defining modes.
Your idea of "recognizably diatonic" is interesting, and deserves quantification. As in, "What is the ideal and how far from it can a scale be to be recognized as diatonic?"
But treating 3-limit JI and 12TET as variations within the same tuning system.... Well, I have the definite impression that most list contributors consider them to be fundamentally different.
Gordon Collins
From: SMTP%"tuning@eartha.mills.edu" 29-MAY-1997 00:55:26.10 To: manuel.op.de.coul@ezh.nl CC: Subj: modes vs keys (was: JI modes)
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 29 May 1997 00:55 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03260; Thu, 29 May 1997 00:55:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 00:55:23 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03258 Received: (qmail 2353 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 22:55:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 May 1997 22:55:18 -0000 Message-Id: <338C294D@fsdsmtpgw.fsd.jhuapl.edu> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>My point was to counter an earlier claim I had thought you made: > >>The distinction between n-limit JI, x-comma meantone, well-temperament, and >>12TET is *totally irrelevant* to the definition of modes and scales! > >with a counter-example. Of course it's not a major scale, because the >tuning system no longer makes it recognizably diatonic.
It's not 11-limit JI but your selection of pitch classes therefrom that prevents your particular scale from being diatonic. You can find seven pitch classes in 12TET that don't make a diatonic scale.
>>But treating 3-limit JI and 12TET as variations within the same tuning >>system.... Well, I have the definite impression that most list contributors >>consider them to be fundamentally different. >> >As would I, but I never claimed that pythagorean and 12TET were >"variations" of the same tuning system. I think that subsets of both can >reasonably represent diatonic modes.
Your definition of mode started out with "1) A tuning system, though it may be somewhat flexible". What would you say is the (flexible) tuning system for, say, the Aeolian mode? If 3-limit JI and 12TET are not variations of it, how can they both represent that mode?
My whole point is that the flexibility that is required is greater than the difference between these tuning systems. Heck, most singers and string players have vibratos wider than that!
>I think the value of tuning >knowledge for the understanding of music is greatly underrated in general. >(As Lou Harrison says: You haven't heard a piece until you've heard it in >the tuning that the composer intended or expected.)
.. and on the intended instruments, with the intended performance technique, with the intended phrasing, etc. These are all important performance considerations - change any one of them and the performance suffers. The particular tuning used, however, is probably the least noticeable of these. How many people can tell the difference between 12TET and 5-limit JI in a string quartet played with the usual vibrato?
Change any of these considerations (to a point, of course) and the piece is still considered to be the same piece. Change the melodies and harmonies - the *notes* - and it is not. (The concept of *note* here is not as precise as that of *pitch*.)
In many cases, the most difficult of these considerations for a historically informed performer to determine is which tuning the composer intended.
>To those students who unquestionably accept 12TET as the >words of the Prophet, an understanding of tuning systems is, I think, just >as valuable as how to resolve a Neapolitan sixth chord, if not more so.
I agree that it would greatly enrich any student's musical education, not only to increase understanding of non-common-practice music, but also to increase understanding of the tuning systems that have been used *within* that tradition. But those students you mention are not accepting 12TET - they're only accepting that there are 12 notes in an octave, *roughly* evenly distributed in pitch. How many of them even know what 12TET is? To most of them, "tuning" is a verb, not a noun, and "temperament" is a psychological term.
Gordon Collins (going off-line for a week....)
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 03:23 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA07620; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 03:22:59 +0200 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 03:22:59 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA07614 Received: (qmail 29574 invoked from network); 7 Jun 1997 01:22:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jun 1997 01:22:16 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970606181455.00699c10@adnc.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu