For Can Akkoc: Modality, tonality, focality

Hello, there, Can Akkoc, and thank you for a question about modality
and tonality which gives an opportunity both to explain some of the
uses that these terms receive, and to comment on the influence of Near
Eastern theory and practice upon some more or less "European-derived"
music which might also illustrate a kind of third category.

> As a pedestrian I welcome the simple argument "..., well all
> music is inextricably tonal.". Then could some one, or anyone
> please explain to me the difference between TONAL music
> and MODAL music.

From one point of view, "tonal" music is any music with a feeling for
a main "center" or "place of repose," so that different modes or
scales might be taken as expressing alike some form of "tonality."

However, the term "tonality" as applied to Western European music
history typically refers especially to the kind of styles based on
major and minor keys favored roughly from around 1670 to 1900, in
contrast to other styles of organization.

The term "modality" is often applied to generally to all Western
European music from the medieval era (say about 500-1420) to the
earlier 17th century. Sometime around 1630-1670, changes in style
occur leading to major/minor tonality. These changes involve not only
the emergence of new patterns of harmony, but the restriction of many
beautiful harmonic progressions common in earlier 16th-17th century
practice.

Starting around the era of Debussy at the turn of the 20th century,
both modal and tonal currents have played a part in European and
related traditions, along with other movements such as Schoenberg's
pantonality (all notes considered equally "central") or "concrete"
music outside traditional relations of pitch (I invite correction on
my use of "concrete").

In traditional European music histories, to sum up, all music before
some point or transitional era around the 17th century is considered
"modal," with the "tonal" era underway by around the era of Corelli
and Werckmeister, say 1680.

However, the concept of "mode" often tends to focus on the choice of a
scale or melodic pattern, whether in European music or in other world
musics. It is interesting that European writers of the 13th and 14th
centuries, for example, often tend to focus mainly on the vertical
aspects of writing for two or more voices: for example, the choices of
stable or unstable intervals and sonorities, and the desire for rich
or complete concords.

To emphasize the vertical aspects of 14th-century music, I have
proposed the term "focality," which could be defined as the tendency
of an unstable sonority to resolve to a stable one via certain
standard progressions involving semitonal melodic motion. Obtaining
these progressions often calls for altering or inflecting the steps of
a diatonic mode.

Both in its 14th-century and modern forms, focal harmony takes as a
basic stable sonority the complete _trine_, built from three voices
forming the intervals of outer 2:1 octave, lower 3:2 fifth, and upper
4:3 fourth. Using a notation with C4 as middle C, for example, we
might write a complete 2:3:4 trine on D as D4-A4-D5.

A piece in the "focality of D," to use a 21st-century rather than
medieval term, will take a trine on D as a main center, and at the
same time often have melodic lines following the diatonic tones of the
mode or octave species D-D, often known as the Dorian mode in medieval
and later naming systems.

However, while such a piece might be described as in "the Dorian mode
on D," the patterns of focal harmony will routinely call for inflected
notes such as C# and G# in regular cadences. For example, consider
these typical progressions, the first a favorite 14th-century
conclusion, and the second a four-voice variation very popular in some
21st-century focal styles:

C#5 D5
C#5 D5 B4 A4
G#4 A4 G#4 A4
E4 D4 E4 D4

(M6-8 + M3-5) (M6-8 + M3-5 + m3-1 + M2-4)

Each cadence combines a set of two-voice resolutions in which an
unstable interval such as a major third or sixth progressions to a
stable interval such as a fifth or octave. Likewise, in the second
progression, the middle minor third contracts to a unison while the
upper major second expands to a fourth.

Obtaining these focal progressions requires the accidentals G# and C#,
which typically would contrast with the usual diatonic tones G and C
of the D mode, adding variety to the music and also further emphasis
to the cadence.

Here I should add that focal harmony is typically based either on
Pythagorean intonation with pure fifths and fourths, or on modern
systems where the fifths are gently tempered in the wide direction.

Scholars such as Christopher Page, drawing on the teaching of
Marchettus of Padua (1318), have suggested that medieval ensembles may
often have tuned their cadential major thirds and sixths somewhat
wider than Pythagorean, producing very effective narrow semitones
smaller than the already rather compact regular step of 256:243
(~90.22 cents). In modern fixed-pitch systems, this is a very common
performance practice, with these cadential thirds and sixths often at
or near ratios of 9:7 (~435.08 cents) and 12:7 (~933.13 cents), for
example.

Thus one could say that a piece "is in the Dorian mode on D," and also
that "it is mainly centered on the focality of D," the latter often
implying the use of altered notes to obtain vertical intervals such as
major thirds and sixths expanding to fifths and octaves (E4-G#4 before
D4-A4, E4-C#5 before D4-D5).

More specifically, one could say that a piece with final cadences such
as those above is in "the focality of D intensive," with the term
"intensive" meaning that the focal progressions involve _ascending_
semitonal motion.

In contrast, a piece centered on D might close with final cadences
like these:

C5 D5
C5 D5 Bb4 A4
G4 A4 G4 A4
Eb4 D4 Eb4 D4

(M6-8 + M3-5) (M6-8 + M3-5 + m3-1 + M2-4)

Here the unstable and stable vertical intervals are identical, but the
resolutions involve _descending_ semitonal motion in some of the
voices. Such motion is sometimes termed "remissive," so that we might
a piece with a final cadence of this variety as written or improvised
"in the focality of D remissive."

The contrast between intensive and remissive progression is a vital
element in 14th-century forms where a remissive cadence typically
signals an internal cadence with more to follow, while an intensive
cadence is more conclusive.

From a traditional historical perspective, the vertical and
organizational style of the 14th century is "modal" simply because it
is quite different from 17th-19th century tonality. However, many of
the most important differences relate not only to the choice of a
diatonic scale, but to the basic patterns of vertical sonority and
resolution. Thus thirds and sixths are active intervals in a
14th-century approach, but stable and restful in 18th-century
tonality, with the first approach suggesting Pythagorean intonation or
the like, and the second some kind of adaptive ensemble intonation or
keyboard temperament approximating ratios of 5:4 and 6:5.

The situation with 21st-century focal harmony -- and possibly also
medieval focal harmony in certain times and places -- becomes yet more
complicated because of the creative and enriching influence of Near
Eastern traditions with their wealth of neutral steps and intervals.

The result, to borrow a phrase from Julia Werntz, is often a "highly
inflected surface" where the diatonic modal structure is altered not
only by standard 14th-century inflections available within a 12-note
Pythagorean tuning or the like, but a range of fine intonational
nuances.

Also, the concept of "mode" in this type of music can embrace Near
Eastern patterns based on neutral or "semineutral" intervals,
sometimes treated as a main basis for melodic and harmonic
progressions, and sometimes as motives or patterns mixed with medieval
European diatonic modes.

One feature shared in common by focal and tonal harmony alike, in
contrast to some more "gentle" modal styles, is the systematic use of
semitonal motion as a feature of the most compelling vertical
cadences.

In focal harmony, such directed progressions seek a stable trine
(2:3:4), with expansion from major third to fifth and major sixth to
octave especially characteristic.

In tonal harmony, directed progressions traditionally seek a stable
triad (4:5:6), with the stepwise resolution of a diminished fifth to a
major third, or of an augmented fourth to a minor sixth, as especially
definitive of a key center. This use of "tritone tension" is something
on which Paul Erlich has often focused in his printed publications and
informative articles here.

One feature of both focal and tonal harmony is that an unstable
sonority can prompt the expectation of a given resolution, creating
the opportunity for a composer artfully to _avoid_ the expected
directed progression, engaging the listener's sustained interest.

Sarah Fuller has written with consummate vision and skill on this
point regarding the style of Guillaume de Machaut (1300-1377), and the
recognition of a "focal" category of harmony might encourage more of a
focus on such techniques both in medieval music and in related modern
styles.

Considering focal harmony as a distinct category might lend some
perspective to usual historical dialogues about "modality" and
"tonality."

For example, a contrast is typically drawn between 16th-century
"modality" and 18th-century "tonality," a contrast indeed reflecting
some important distinctions of style not only regarding the choice or
definitions of scales, but preferences regarding vertical progressions
and the treatment of concord/discord.

At the same time, both types of styles have certain common
assumptions: the treatment of thirds and sixths as the richest stable
concords, ideally with sizes at or near 5-based ratios; and the
avoidance for the most part of parallel fifths and octaves, an
important factor in constraining the choice of progressions.

Focal harmony in a 14th-century or 21st-century style is quite
different, with its trinic standard of stable concord, and its use of
other types of tuning systems and interval sizes -- with modern
textures often favoring thirds at or near 9:7 and 7:6, for example.

Since I've said quite a lot here, why don't I invite your questions or
comments?

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net