Scales versus modes

To me, modes are only a shift of the tonic of the same scale, with extra allowance of note alterations. At least that is what comes to mind when one thinks of `Greek modes`.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pehrson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 23 Mayıs 2005 Pazartesi 5:41
Subject: [tuning] Re: question about just intonation scales

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> On 5/22/05, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Traditionally, if it's *unordered* it is, of course, considered
> > a "set" not a "scale..."
>
> I like that "of course" for something I've never heard of before :-S
>
> The references I checked after Jon corrected me say that "mode" is the
> word for an unordered set of notes. Does that make any sense to you?
> How about "notes of the scale"?
>
>
> Graham

***Hello Graham!

Personally, I believe "modes" are also thought of as having a pitch
order, like scales (at least the traditional "Church Modes" and such
like...)

I believe, in the 20th Century (not the 21st!) the term "set" was
coined just for these purposes: to present discrete pitches together
in a group that was intentionally not ordered, but which could be
subject to various arithmetic transformations...

Sorry about the "of course..." I really wasn't being snide, but I
guess I assumed that people knew about this kind of set theory
stuff... :)

J. Pehrson

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>To me, modes are only a shift of the tonic of the same scale, with extra allowance of note alterations. At least that is what comes to mind when one thinks of `Greek modes`.
>
>
>

A shift in the same scale or gamut? Given the theoretically useful terms
"gamut" (please correct me if my definition really is nothing but my
private use: a finite selection of pitches, like the contents of a
Focker block reordered according to pitch height) and "mode" (which adds
funktions to tones from this selection), I guess "scale" is a run
through the gamut according to the rules of the mode; the term adds
nothing new. How do scales appear in actual music? They are ornaments,
and outside of music, practice patterns. Either this or a generic term
for gamuts and modes, common but unspecific.

klaus

>Cordially,
>Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph Pehrson
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 23 Mayıs 2005 Pazartesi 5:41
> Subject: [tuning] Re: question about just intonation scales
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> > On 5/22/05, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > ***Traditionally, if it's *unordered* it is, of course, considered
> > > a "set" not a "scale..."
> >
> > I like that "of course" for something I've never heard of before :-S
> >
> > The references I checked after Jon corrected me say that "mode" is the
> > word for an unordered set of notes. Does that make any sense to you?
> > How about "notes of the scale"?
> >
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> ***Hello Graham!
>
> Personally, I believe "modes" are also thought of as having a pitch
> order, like scales (at least the traditional "Church Modes" and such
> like...)
>
> I believe, in the 20th Century (not the 21st!) the term "set" was
> coined just for these purposes: to present discrete pitches together
> in a group that was intentionally not ordered, but which could be
> subject to various arithmetic transformations...
>
> Sorry about the "of course..." I really wasn't being snide, but I
> guess I assumed that people knew about this kind of set theory
> stuff... :)
>
>
> J. Pehrson
>
>
>
>
>

Klaus, I tend to think of scales as static ordered pitch sequences with at least a given tonic, gamuts as dynamically ordered succesive pitch sequences in ascent, descent or both, modes as scales with shifting tonics, keys/rags/maqams as modes with various other functions assigned to the scale degrees, such as transposition, harmonic and melodic contexts.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: klaus schmirler
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 25 Mayıs 2005 Çarşamba 15:38
Subject: Re: [tuning] Scales versus modes

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>To me, modes are only a shift of the tonic of the same scale, with extra allowance of note alterations. At least that is what comes to mind when one thinks of `Greek modes`.
>
>
>

A shift in the same scale or gamut? Given the theoretically useful terms
"gamut" (please correct me if my definition really is nothing but my
private use: a finite selection of pitches, like the contents of a
Focker block reordered according to pitch height) and "mode" (which adds
funktions to tones from this selection), I guess "scale" is a run
through the gamut according to the rules of the mode; the term adds
nothing new. How do scales appear in actual music? They are ornaments,
and outside of music, practice patterns. Either this or a generic term
for gamuts and modes, common but unspecific.

klaus

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>Klaus, I tend to think of scales as static ordered pitch sequences with at least a given tonic, gamuts as dynamically ordered succesive pitch sequences in ascent, descent or both, modes as scales with shifting tonics,
>

So you play the piano, don't you :O)? I prefer to think of modes as a
fixed sequence of whole and half steps from a tonic. It's a nice
coincidence that they can be presented as different selections from the
gamut. And in practice they always have more than just their tonic. In
gregorian chant, you had authentic and plagal modes from the finales d,
e, f, and g, so they differed in compass in addition to their
intervallic content. You had definite recitation tones, preferred for
jumps, turning points and stepwise progressions; all this makes me think
that "mode" is just the medieval European equivalent to rags and maqams.
I can see a limited use for "scale" (when you want to use it in contrast
to both mode and gamut) if you need to refer to the common compass of
aeolian and hypodorian, but note that they have different tonics and
permit different alterations.

I know about the dorian-myxolydian-ionian sequence in Jazz theory which
fits your definition exactly. However, this is basically one man's
(Joseph Schillinger's?) idea that happens to be taught at one single
(though influential) music school. He took the mode names from Heinrich
Glarean, who had added c and a as possible finals to the old system and
gave greekish names to each of them; he described the ruins of of the
modal system while noting that the most common mode was Ionian.
Schillinger (if it was him) says "myxolydian" in place of "a major
scale against its dominant chord". Why? I have no idea.

If you consider "major" a mode, you know about its tonic and leading
tones. You also know about tonality and consider polyphonic music from a
chordal point of view. This aspect of Schillinger's (again, if he is
the culprit) theory does the same, but tries to ignore the functional
roles of chords while talking about chord-based music. I'd rather talk
about the second degree of major than use a term that was invent d in
the 16th century for a "new look" at music form the 8th.

hos,ça kal,

klaus

----- Original Message -----
From: klaus schmirler
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 25 Mayıs 2005 Çarşamba 20:48
Subject: Re: [tuning] Scales versus modes

So you play the piano, don't you :O)?

Although there are doubtless many who are more talented than myself here, I may say that I have an affinity for the pianoforte.

I prefer to think of modes as a
fixed sequence of whole and half steps from a tonic. It's a nice
coincidence that they can be presented as different selections from the
gamut. And in practice they always have more than just their tonic. In
gregorian chant, you had authentic and plagal modes from the finales d, e, f, and g, so they differed in compass in addition to their
intervallic content. You had definite recitation tones, preferred for
jumps, turning points and stepwise progressions; all this makes me think that "mode" is just the medieval European equivalent to rags and maqams.

Amen to that! However, the plagal modes are more like keys in my opinion, and that the key is the best word that would stand for maqam. Say, the Key of Huseini would be a perfect description of what a piece written in Huseini Maqam would sound like.

I can see a limited use for "scale" (when you want to use it in contrast to both mode and gamut) if you need to refer to the common compass of aeolian and hypodorian, but note that they have different tonics and permit different alterations.

I hardly think there can be any importance ascribed to any particular degree of a scale, unless a descriptive letter such as C major, D minor, E etc... is placed before it. Once you ascribe a tonic to a scale degree, you will have a gamut and a mode if you ascribe a co-finalis next to it.

So, as I understand it:

A scale is an assortment of pitches from low to high

A gamut is ascending/descending a scale from the first note (tonic) as basis.

A mode is the same scale where the tonic is shifted to one of the degrees of the scale.

A key is the same scale, within whose sphere the degrees are ascribed many roles and functions.

I know about the dorian-myxolydian-ionian sequence in Jazz theory which fits your definition exactly. However, this is basically one man's
(Joseph Schillinger's?) idea that happens to be taught at one single
(though influential) music school. He took the mode names from Heinrich Glarean, who had added c and a as possible finals to the old system and gave greekish names to each of them; he described the ruins of of the
modal system while noting that the most common mode was Ionian.
Schillinger (if it was him) says "myxolydian" in place of "a major
scale against its dominant chord". Why? I have no idea.

I don't know if I am educated enough to comment on the Church modes, but do my explanations contradict your understanding?

If you consider "major" a mode, you know about its tonic and leading
tones.

Precisely, but with a major scale, you just have a beginning and an end, with no degree as tonic, leading tone, sub-dominant or dominant. For there, you need a key.

You also know about tonality and consider polyphonic music from a chordal point of view. This aspect of Schillinger's (again, if he is the culprit) theory does the same, but tries to ignore the functional
roles of chords while talking about chord-based music. I'd rather talk
about the second degree of major than use a term that was invent d in
the 16th century for a "new look" at music form the 8th.

I don't follow you. I always consider polyphonic music from a contrapuntal point of view, to say nothing of counterpoint.

hos,ça kal,

klaus

Sen de hoşçakal.
Ozan

P.S. If you seperate hoş and çakal, it would mean "nice-looking jackal" BTW. Ain't Turkish wacky?