Greek and medieval modal names

I'm not sure whether it's relevant to the current discussion on
modes, but I am reading (dipping into!) "Western Plainchant - a
Handbook" by David Hiley. On page 462 he gives a table comparing
names of 8 modes where the names vary in sources

The table has four columns -
start note; Boethius; Alia musica; Tonaries, Hucbald, Aurelian etc
and the 8 entires are

D; Phrygian; Dorian; Protus Authentus
A; Hypodorian; Hypodorian; Protus Plagalis
E; Dorian; Phrygian; Deuterus Authentus
B; Mixolydian; Hypophrygian; Deuterus Plagalis
F; Hypolydian; Lydian; Tritus Authentus
C; Lydian; Hypolydian; Tritus Plagalis
G; Hypophrygian; Mixolydian; Tetradus Authentus
D; [blank]; Hypermixolydian; Tetrardus Plagalis

Can anyone explain why the modes on which our modern Western art
music major and minor scales are based, i.e. Ionian on C, and Aeolian
on A, appear to have originated as late as 1547 when they were added
to the medieval modes by Glarean in his Dodecachordon (Grove article
by Harold Powers). He mentions that the C mode was called tonus
lascivius (frolicksome or wanton) and considered apt only for secular
music.

Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "copernical2002" <mike.j.newman@b...>
wrote:

> Can anyone explain why the modes on which our modern Western art
> music major and minor scales are based, i.e. Ionian on C, and Aeolian
> on A, appear to have originated as late as 1547 when they were added
> to the medieval modes by Glarean in his Dodecachordon (Grove article
> by Harold Powers). He mentions that the C mode was called tonus
> lascivius (frolicksome or wanton) and considered apt only for secular
> music.
>
> Mike

In the Middle Ages, the only stable concords were the perfect intervals
(fourths, fifths, octaves . . .). By the late 15th century, imperfect
consonances (thirds, sixths, . . .) were added to this list, and soon
music without these consonances was felt to be "incomplete". The
complete harmonies became what we understand today as major and minor
triads and their inversions. Parallel fifths, a stable of medieval
music, became a no-no. Soon, the strongest contrapuntal resolution in
the diatonic scale became the resolution of the tritone:

B->C
F->E

The semitone (rarer diatonic step size) steps moving in contrary motion
from the tritone or "devil's interval" to a nice consonance make this a
powerful resolution. The notes resolved to, C and E, form part of the
tonic triad only in the modes on A and C. By 1670 at the latest, these
modes thus took precedence over the others in the new art of what is
(perhaps unfortunately) known as "tonal" music, or Western common-
practice. Other modes fell out of use as they didn't conform to
the "grammar" of this new "language" -- it became very difficult to
avoid the feeling that A or C (for the case of no accidentals) wanted
to assert itself as tonic when attempting to make music in the other
modes, particularly if the tritone made any appearance either
harmonically or melodically.

Therefore it doesn't surprise me that these (A and C) modes didn't play
an important role in the "pre-tonal" era.

Thanks for the very clear reply.
I followed the argument except for the last two lines.
It's not clear why modes with A and C as finals were
any more or less attractive than the others before the
harmonic issues were introduced i.e. resolving to tonic
chords. The medieval chants had special rules to avoid
the tritone in all modes didn't they?

Another question you may have an answer for is how they
decided which of the notes to label 'A'. I believe that
the letters were allocated to notes around 1000AD
and have seen that Guido started his gamut on the G
at the bottom of the bass clef. I'm assuming it has something
to do with the ancient Greeks and their diatonic tetrachord?

Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "copernical2002"
<mike.j.newman@b...>
> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain why the modes on which our modern Western art
> > music major and minor scales are based, i.e. Ionian on C, and
Aeolian
> > on A, appear to have originated as late as 1547 when they were
added
> > to the medieval modes by Glarean in his Dodecachordon (Grove
article
> > by Harold Powers). He mentions that the C mode was called tonus
> > lascivius (frolicksome or wanton) and considered apt only for
secular
> > music.
> >
> > Mike
>
> In the Middle Ages, the only stable concords were the perfect
intervals
> (fourths, fifths, octaves . . .). By the late 15th century,
imperfect
> consonances (thirds, sixths, . . .) were added to this list, and
soon
> music without these consonances was felt to be "incomplete". The
> complete harmonies became what we understand today as major and
minor
> triads and their inversions. Parallel fifths, a stable of medieval
> music, became a no-no. Soon, the strongest contrapuntal resolution
in
> the diatonic scale became the resolution of the tritone:
>
> B->C
> F->E
>
> The semitone (rarer diatonic step size) steps moving in contrary
motion
> from the tritone or "devil's interval" to a nice consonance make
this a
> powerful resolution. The notes resolved to, C and E, form part of
the
> tonic triad only in the modes on A and C. By 1670 at the latest,
these
> modes thus took precedence over the others in the new art of what
is
> (perhaps unfortunately) known as "tonal" music, or Western common-
> practice. Other modes fell out of use as they didn't conform to
> the "grammar" of this new "language" -- it became very difficult to
> avoid the feeling that A or C (for the case of no accidentals)
wanted
> to assert itself as tonic when attempting to make music in the
other
> modes, particularly if the tritone made any appearance either
> harmonically or melodically.
>
> Therefore it doesn't surprise me that these (A and C) modes didn't
play
> an important role in the "pre-tonal" era.
>

Hi Mike,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "copernical2002" <mike.j.newman@b...>
wrote:

> Another question you may have an answer for is how they
> decided which of the notes to label 'A'. I believe that
> the letters were allocated to notes around 1000AD
> and have seen that Guido started his gamut on the G
> at the bottom of the bass clef. I'm assuming it has something
> to do with the ancient Greeks and their diatonic tetrachord?

If you follow any of the posts in the "Boethius modal system"
thread over the last few days, you'll see that i've been
making lots of statements about this recently.

The ancient Greek system was based on a reference note
which they called "mese", which means "middle" -- i.e.,
it was the central note in their pitch system. Supposedly,
it was orignally the central string of the lyre, the
instrument upon which their theory was based, and which
provided the verbose Greek note-names.

The Greek GPS (Greater Perfect System) and
PIS (Perfect Immutable System) extended the pitches
to cover a 2-octave span, and so the bottom note was
exactly an octave below "mese", and the top note was
an octave above "mese".

So naturally, when Frankish theorists applied the
Roman alphabet to pitches, they named "mese" and the
bottom and top notes all as "A".

The earliest treatise which used the Roman letters
in their modern octave-equivalent sense, AFAIK, was
the _dialogus_ of pseudo-Odo, of c.1000 AD.

http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ODODIA_TEXT.html

However, about a century before this treatise was
written, Hucbald shifted the whole Greek system down
by a whole-tone, so that "G" became the reference
pitch and the lowest and highest note.

None of these pitches were absolute, in the modern
sense -- they all denoted relative pitch relationships.
What was important to the Frankish theorists were the
intervallic structures.

If you have no idea what i'm talking about, start here:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/pis.aspx

and look in the menu-bar for other terms which are in
the Encyclopedia.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Thanks for this Joe.
Yes, I have been lurking on the "Boethius modal system" messages but
have found them too difficult to follow. I will check your message
quietly and see if I can follow it. I have borrowed a copy of
Babb's "Hucbald, Guido and John on Music" from the library and am
hoping I can follow some of that.
Thanks again for your work on making stuff available for others.
Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "copernical2002" <mike.j.newman@b...>
> wrote:
>
> > Another question you may have an answer for is how they
> > decided which of the notes to label 'A'. I believe that
> > the letters were allocated to notes around 1000AD
> > and have seen that Guido started his gamut on the G
> > at the bottom of the bass clef. I'm assuming it has something
> > to do with the ancient Greeks and their diatonic tetrachord?
>
>
>
> If you follow any of the posts in the "Boethius modal system"
> thread over the last few days, you'll see that i've been
> making lots of statements about this recently.
>
> The ancient Greek system was based on a reference note
> which they called "mese", which means "middle" -- i.e.,
> it was the central note in their pitch system. Supposedly,
> it was orignally the central string of the lyre, the
> instrument upon which their theory was based, and which
> provided the verbose Greek note-names.
>
> The Greek GPS (Greater Perfect System) and
> PIS (Perfect Immutable System) extended the pitches
> to cover a 2-octave span, and so the bottom note was
> exactly an octave below "mese", and the top note was
> an octave above "mese".
>
> So naturally, when Frankish theorists applied the
> Roman alphabet to pitches, they named "mese" and the
> bottom and top notes all as "A".
>
> The earliest treatise which used the Roman letters
> in their modern octave-equivalent sense, AFAIK, was
> the _dialogus_ of pseudo-Odo, of c.1000 AD.
>
> http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ODODIA_TEXT.html
>
>
> However, about a century before this treatise was
> written, Hucbald shifted the whole Greek system down
> by a whole-tone, so that "G" became the reference
> pitch and the lowest and highest note.
>
> None of these pitches were absolute, in the modern
> sense -- they all denoted relative pitch relationships.
> What was important to the Frankish theorists were the
> intervallic structures.
>
>
> If you have no idea what i'm talking about, start here:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/pis.aspx
>
> and look in the menu-bar for other terms which are in
> the Encyclopedia.
>
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>

Hi Mike,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "copernical2002" <mike.j.newman@b...>
wrote:

> Thanks for this Joe.
> Yes, I have been lurking on the "Boethius modal system"
> messages but have found them too difficult to follow.
> I will check your message quietly and see if I can follow
> it. I have borrowed a copy of Babb's "Hucbald, Guido and
> John on Music" from the library and am hoping I can follow
> some of that. Thanks again for your work on making stuff
> available for others.

It's great that you're able to find Hucbald's treatise
so easily. Ozan (in Istanbul, Turkey) needs to read it,
and i just did a world-wide Worldcat search for it,
and the closest copy to him is in Florence, Italy. But
libraries all over the USA have it.

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:

> > The earliest treatise which used the Roman letters
> > in their modern octave-equivalent sense, AFAIK, was
> > the _dialogus_ of pseudo-Odo, of c.1000 AD.
> >
> > http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ODODIA_TEXT.html

You will definitely want to read this one too, as it
fits right between Hucbald and Guido.

It was translated by Oliver Strunk in _Source Readings
in Music History_, which is very likely to be in the same
library where you found Hucbald -- the Strunk is much more
commonly found than the Babb volume.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:

> > > The earliest treatise which used the Roman letters
> > > in their modern octave-equivalent sense, AFAIK, was
> > > the _dialogus_ of pseudo-Odo, of c.1000 AD.
> > >
> > > http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ODODIA_TEXT.html
>
>
>
> You will definitely want to read this one too, as it
> fits right between Hucbald and Guido.
>
> It was translated by Oliver Strunk in _Source Readings
> in Music History_, which is very likely to be in the same
> library where you found Hucbald -- the Strunk is much more
> commonly found than the Babb volume.

It made sense to put Hucbald, Guido, and John together
into one small book (Babb) ... but the _dialogus_ is also
very short and should have been included in its proper
chronological place as well. It's conspicuous by its
absence.

I used to wish that some governmental or academic entity
would fund a project to tranlate all of the Latin music-theory
texts into English, in chronological order. But there's
slim chance of that happening in the USA now ... maybe
some organization in the UK or Australia?

Cultural spheres which might still be interested in a
translation project like that, don't use English as
their main language. (I'm thinking Netherlands, Germany,
or France ... altho France has some other issues to
deal with right now ...)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software