Page 3 of 4
#81
20T would shoot it down because he's the only one here that still mixes up CST and modes and he has no idea that there's a difference
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#82
I'd like it to explain that CST/patterns of visualising accidentals is an acceptable approach, kinda like my 3 approaches to modes blog.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#83
Quote by Xiaoxi
Maybe we should come up with a comprehensive but concise thing ourselves explaining why modes just aren't relevant.


/thread
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#84
Quote by Hail
20T would shoot it down because he's the only one here that still mixes up CST and modes and he has no idea that there's a difference

You are rather vague with your criticism.

I haven't discussed CST in this thread. If you are referring to the link in my sig in which I describe three typical ways that modes are used then I might actually understand WTF you are getting and be able to have a meaningful discussion.

But you have been very unclear in showing me where you think I have gone wrong. Your criticisms seem to imply that the posts I have made in this thread are confusing CST with modes. I don't believe any of what I have said in this post has anything to do with chord scale theory.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion then please elaborate on you criticism. If all you want to do is snipe then go right ahead and I'll know from here on out just to ignore you.
Si
#85
Quote by 20Tigers


It's not a shortcut. It's understanding what those terms mean and what they communicate to other musicians. So there is no point at which you would no longer "need" to categorize intervals that way. Once you know what they are and how they sound you know them. You can use them as a basis for musical composition if you want or as a way of analyzing music, or to understand and quickly relay specific information to other musicians.

Mode, in the widest sense of the word denotes the selection of tones, arranged in a scale, that form the basic tonal substance of a composition. As a result each mode has it's own unique sonority.

A key defines the tonal centre and by extension the relationship of all the notes in a composition to that tonal centre. In any given key a large number of modes are possible. Typically we refer to a key as being major or minor but those are not the only two options (as noted by Bernstein in one of my previous posts).

In a narrower sense of the term "modes" refers to the church modes (as described in the link in my sig) each of which is one possible mode within a given key.

The question comes down to what are we saying when we say something is in a specific key.

What does it mean to say something is in the key of A minor. Well according to the above this would mean that the key is A and the mode is minor. Specifically the minor scale* forms the basic tonal substance of the composition (note not necessarily the complete tonal substance of the composition). If it is in the key of A major then the key is A the mode is major which is the major scale.

This is not to say that the composition is limited to the use of the notes of those scales. The key of course defines the tonal centre and the relationships between it and the entire spectre of possible notes. What it says is that those are the notes that provide the piece with it's core sonic character.

Major and minor are by far the most common "modes". The church modes rarely come into play really, I can accept that. But they are out there and they do have something to offer, even if the most you get out of learning about them is being able to understand what someone is talking about when they use the terms**.

*the minor scale referring to the complete minor scale including the harmonic and melodic minor alterations

**At least when they use them correctly - i.e. not in reference to one of seven fretboard patterns of the same major scale


modes do not exist within keys

it's not "the new use for modes" or "another use for modes". it's an established system that has absolutely nothing to do with modes, and has its own name to describe it. i don't understand why you feel the need to shove CST into modes and it doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
Last edited by Hail at Dec 8, 2012,
#86
Quote by Hail
modes do not exist within keys

it's not "the new use for modes" or "another use for modes". it's an established system that has absolutely nothing to do with modes, and has its own name to describe it. i don't understand why you feel the need to shove CST into modes and it doesn't make any sense to me.

CST...
Quote by mdc
Modes: 0:55 - 1:28

Am11 - Amaj7#11 - Dm11 - -Gma7#11

A Dorian - A Lydian - D Dorian - G Lydian

-3-4-3-3
-3-4-3-3
-5-6-5-4
-5-6-3-4
-0-0-5-x
-------3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv-fcUPOqOw

Modes exist.

That's using modes as chord scales in the key of E minor.

Plainsong and folksong modes, aren't the same as scales. There's a final, which remains the same whether it's authentic or plagal, but there's no harmony.

The closest you could get to harmonizing a modal melody without destroying it's character is organum.
#87
i know what modal music is and understand how primitive and fragile it is harmonically.

but when there's a key involved, and you're using a scale for "flavor" like the guthrie piece - CST or accidentals. call it whatever you want, but modality ends as far as the inspiration for the scales. 20T is mixing up the fact that there's a major, minor, and diminished mode in tonality with the church modes and ignoring that you can't just change the name of a convention because you're lazy, especially if one already exists.

i understand the idea came from a mis-imagining of the church modes, but realizing, in a key, they're functionally accidentals, is necessary to understand if you're going to try and instruct people as to what modes actually are

we can go into it for hours about whether modal music actually exists as its own entity rather than a very narrow glimpse at tonality, but that's not what this is about - it's literally about thinking that the idea changed completely because of conventions that we've already defined just aren't good enough for someone to accept that we can leave modes out of the equation.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#89
Quote by mdc
Plainsong and folksong modes, aren't the same as scales. There's a final, which remains the same whether it's authentic or plagal, but there's no harmony.

The closest you could get to harmonizing a modal melody without destroying it's character is organum.


I question the veracity of your statements concerning modes and harmony.

Early renaissance polyphony is drawn almost entirely from (church) modes. True, as time passes more and more accidentals crept into polyphonic music, and eventually this developed into the system of tonality we use now. Nonetheless it's possible to 'do' harmonised modal music.

The problem for modern listeners used to tonal music is that modal harmony has a tendency to sound like tonal harmony. So I can see why you say that harmonising a modal melody will destroy its character (every time we hear a dominant / tonic interchange, for example, it screams "establishment of key!!!"), but from the pov of history what you say is unsupported by evidence.
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#90
Quote by Hail
we can go into it for hours about whether modal music actually exists as its own entity rather than a very narrow glimpse at tonality


I somewhat echo your sentiment.

Rather than bothering about whether modes exist, look at how the term is used in its historical context. Questions of existence in relation to conceptual ideas invariably end up either on a wild goose chase or a pissing match over the definition of the terms 'exist' and 'real'.

It's no good, for example, trying to maintain that modes 'just are' a subset of tonality. Not only is that overly reductive, it's also entirely unhistorical, is in flat contradiction to modern musicological practice, and betrays a lack of understanding of the origin of the term and its changing usage over time. If you want to explain modes you need to have a much better grasp of them than that.
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#91
Quote by Hail
modes do not exist within keys

it's not "the new use for modes" or "another use for modes". it's an established system that has absolutely nothing to do with modes, and has its own name to describe it. i don't understand why you feel the need to shove CST into modes and it doesn't make any sense to me.

Sorry it's so long, but I do want to clarify some things though because it appears that I was unclear in my earlier message as the meaning you took from my post is not what I intended it to be. I'm not trying to argue with you here just lay out my thinking in full when I posted the earlier post.

Modes are a collection of notes that make up the tonal character, or sonority of a piece of music arranged in a scale form. Often mode also refers to specific melodic (or harmonic) patterns. And what I mean there is that sometimes "mode" refers not just to the note collection but prescribe a specific way those notes are used.

"minor" when referring to tonal music is a mode. It is the collection of notes that give a piece of music a specific sonority that we call minor. Further it also specifices harmonic and melodic patterns that are a part of that mode i.e. the harmonic and melodic minor scales on a V-I cadene are a part of the melodic minor "mode".

Typically when someone speaks of music being modal what they are saying is that the "mode" for that particulary piece is one other than the normal major and minor that have grown accustomed to over the past 200+ years. Most often referring to the church modes.

The church modes have a long and very complex history. I think it stretches over a some 800 years and the details relating to the modes (what they were, how they were used, the number of modes etc) changed and evolved with the music and musical theories that were fashionable in the day.

While looking at the changing fashions in music theorists eventually posited that much of the music that was being produced could be reduced to two modes (one major and one minor) that could be transposed to any of the 12 tonal centres and that these 24 keys (12 major and 12 minor) could be used to analyse and understand all the music that was happening at the time.

People loved this new tonal music and it caught on. It became pretty much the only way any new music was created for the next 200 years. The church modes, all but abandoned; continued their existence in the old plain song and folk traditions.

In the 19th and 20th centuries composers wanted some fresh ideas and sounds. And they found through an exploration of the church modes.

Some sources categorize three basic reasons for incorporating church modes into music today. 1. To imitate the feel of 16thC sacred music 2. To bring qualities of traditional folk music 3. as a reactoin against the major/minor system to find new sounds and ideas.

Though the modern composers saw the old modes as an opportunity to explore new ideas and fresh sounds they did not completely ignore the last 200 years of music. The modes were reinterpreted through the lens of 200 years of major/minor dominated tonal music.

The modes no longer had the all the same defining characteristics in regard to ambitus, predetermined melodic patterns, and final that defined the modes of the 16th Century and before. What defined the mode in the new interpretation was strictly the intervallic structure (step pattern). The step pattern could be applied to any key note (tonal centre) to produce the same mode in a different ***.

I think that last sentence is where I lost you last time. I was not implying that the modes exist within a major key or that they exist within the minor key as some kind of CST. I was actually, and perhaps erroneously, separating key from major/minor. I was perhaps a little too influenced by the wording of the Harvard Dictionary of Music when I wrote that post. Specifically I refer to the following entries:

Quote by Harvard Dictionary of Music Second Edition pg 535
(When defining mode) .....In any given key (i.e. for any given centre tone or tonic, e.g. E) a large number of modes are possible, some of which are indicated in the accompanying illustration: 1 is the "Dorian Mode" (tansposed from D to E); 2 is the "Phrygian mode" (untransposed); 3 is the "major mode (usually called the major key); 4 is the "mnor mode" (usually called the minor key) etc...

Quote by Harvard Dictionary of Music Second Edition pp 450-451
Key. (2) By specialization the term came to mean the "main" key of a composition, i.e. the main note or "tonal centre" to which all it's notes are related and finally, by extension, the meaning of the entire tonal material itself in relation to it's tonal center. Thus, "key" is practically synonmous with *tonality. There is, however, a distinct difference between key and scale, since numerous notes extraneous to the scale can be used in the key, e.g. as chromatic variants or in connection with modulations.

Correpsonding to the 12 tones of the chromatic scale, there are 12 keys, one on C on on C-Sharp etc. (this number is increased to 14 or 15 by the notational distinction between *enharmonic keys, such as C-sharp ad D-flat or G-sharp and A-flat). With an given key there is a choice of *modality, i.e. of certain alterations of the tonest hat form the scale. Thus, in C there is the choice between major (mode); c d e f g a b c; minor (mode): c d eb f g a(b) b c; Lydian mode: c d e f# g a b c; and others derived from the *church modes. Of these, only the first two are usually considered and are actually (though not quite logically) distinguished as different keys, thus leading to a total number of 24 keys, one major and one minor on each tone of the chromatic scale...


Hopefully this has clarified what I was thinking when I posted the last post. -Nothing to do with CST.
Si
#92
^ i can't disagree with anything in that post. well said.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#93
I'm hiding this thread cause i'ts stupid.
Gear:
Dean RC7X (Bareknuckle Coldsweat pickups)
Ibanez Rg2570Z (Bareknuckle Juggernaughts)
Schecter KM-6
Schecter Hellraiser Hybrid 7 String
Engl Powerball II
Orange PPC412
Line 6 Pod HD500X
#94
I saw a big post by Xiaoxi a while back about modes. Do any of you guys have it? I'm kind of having trouble understanding the argument, myself. I only have 3 semesters of undergrad Theory under my belt so if one of you guys wants to explain it to me, I'm all ears.
Last edited by The Madcap at Dec 12, 2012,
#95
The Madcap,

Basically all you have missed is a pissing match about definitions.

Love,

JR
#96
Quote by The Madcap
I saw a big post by Xiaoxi a while back about modes. Do any of you guys have it? I'm kind of having trouble understanding the argument, myself. I only have 3 semesters of undergrad Theory under my belt so if one of you guys wants to explain it to me, I'm all ears.


Allow me to bring you up to speed:

1. Guy posts question in MT asking about using scales to write songs/what scales he should learn/what do scales have to do with guitar/scales/scales/scales/scales/modes/scales

etc...

2. Some people give some good advice for a post or two then some would-be shredhead still sporting a hard-on from that Satch article on "Pitch Axis" spouts off that TS should learn modes.

3. The Regs respond that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.(Note: This ranges from somebody like Hotspur or mdc offering a mild mannered rebuttal to Hail or Griff Calling him a Dumbass and he should go home & re-evaluate his theory/playing/life in general, or something along those lines.)

4. Shred head gets all butthurt and escalates the argument further culminating in 100+ posts of knowledge, bullshit, name calling, comments about the sexual misadventures of someone's maternal figure, side dish recipes, you name it it's probably come up. All ending with AW laying down the law only to be refuted by 20T locking them into a clash of titanic proportions.

That's my general observation anyway.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
Last edited by J-Dawg158 at Dec 12, 2012,
#99
Doesn't anyone think that saying, "It's just in the key of X" is an unsatisfactory explanation when one is trying to describe a section or fragment of a composition that is clearly formed around the tonality of a mode?

Think about the Chocobo Theme in FF. One could simply state that it's in the Key of G, because at points it clearly indicates that it is harmonically functional, but would it not be more descriptive, and helpful, to note that the entire A section, and a lot of the B section, is based around a Mixolydian tonality?

Or is the AeolianWolf method of "IT'S THE KEY OF G, SOMETIMES THERE'S b7's! NOOB!" more descriptive and helpful in communicating what's happening musically?

Honest question.
#100
@chornowarp
The thing about modes and music in general is that it is based off feeling. Music is what you make of it and nothing more. Think of it like this: there is green, light green, lime green, forest green, apple green, gangrene..., blue green, aqua, etc. but if you asked a kindergartner what color that is they would simply say green.
What I mean is that it is all learned perceptions that give us these varied definitions. Try playing D C G a D and playing a G major (starting and ending on G) scale over it...it is not going to sound quite right, however if you take the same notes and start them on D it will...kinda weird but not worth the 5 pages of argument.
#101
Quote by jrenkert
@chornowarp
The thing about modes and music in general is that it is based off feeling. Music is what you make of it and nothing more. Think of it like this: there is green, light green, lime green, forest green, apple green, gangrene..., blue green, aqua, etc. but if you asked a kindergartner what color that is they would simply say green.
What I mean is that it is all learned perceptions that give us these varied definitions. Try playing D C G a D and playing a G major (starting and ending on G) scale over it...it is not going to sound quite right, however if you take the same notes and start them on D it will...kinda weird but not worth the 5 pages of argument.

Why would you play them in that order? You can play them in whatever order and it will sound fine. The note you start with or the order of the notes doesn't make the scale different. You can emphasize G note if you want but it might not sound good if it's not a chord tone and it will not make the progression to be in G major. You should think what chord you are playing over. G is the fourth of D major chord and that's why it doesn't sound good. But if the last note you played was one step higher or half steps lower, it would sound good because F# and A belong to D major chord.

And in this case you wouldn't be playing G major scale because the key would be D major. It would just be D major scale with b7, you could call it D mixolydian scale if you wanted (but that doesn't mean the song is "in mixolydian").
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#102
Quote by chronowarp
Doesn't anyone think that saying, "It's just in the key of X" is an unsatisfactory explanation when one is trying to describe a section or fragment of a composition that is clearly formed around the tonality of a mode?


no. you, maybe, but that might explain a thing or two about why you have such an issue with it. think about what a key is. and i mean really think.

Quote by chronowarp
Think about the Chocobo Theme in FF. One could simply state that it's in the Key of G, because at points it clearly indicates that it is harmonically functional, but would it not be more descriptive, and helpful, to note that the entire A section, and a lot of the B section, is based around a Mixolydian tonality?

Or is the AeolianWolf method of "IT'S THE KEY OF G, SOMETIMES THERE'S b7's! NOOB!" more descriptive and helpful in communicating what's happening musically?

Honest question.


mixolydian is not a "tonality". i advise you to go back to basics and start learning from the ground up (from a teacher who actually knows what the hell they're talking about).

a flawed understanding of music theory is a flawed understanding of music theory. you can get by with it (just like you can get by with no understanding of music theory), but that doesn't mean it's correct.

if i can poke holes wide open in the theories you and your ilk present, but you can't give me any logical rebuttal about why my method doesn't work, logically and objectively speaking, which method is more accurate? more efficient? more parsimonious?

you're lying to yourself if you answered any of those three with the method that you have come to know.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#103
You're a hoot man. Why do you flippantly assume and disrespect other people over an issue that's entirely semantics? We've been over this numerous times. I don't need to "go back to basics" I have a ****ing degree in music, and teach this shit regularly.

Mixolydian is a tonality - all modes are distinct tonalities. We have a two key system based on the major & minor modes, hinged together w/ functional harmony, yes, and while it is satisfactory in most instances in describing the overall makeup of most Western music it is not an end-all, and it is not the ONLY satisfactory explanation.

Your method fails, in that, it rejects a much SIMPLER and DESCRIPTIVE explanation simply for absolute, irrefutable consistency.

If a section of a piece of music is clearly Mixolydian, in what the melody & music communicate, but it is encompassed as a whole composition, within a key, that does not mean it cannot and shall not be called Mixolydian.

Your method would be, "****IN NOOB ITS IN THE KEY OF G, WITH A BUNCH OF CHROMATIC b7'S". The reason that explanation is unsatisfactory is because it doesn't really communicate anything about what the melody sounds like or is implying. Saying something is in the key of G with accidentals isn't descriptive in any meaningful way. It has b7 accidentals? Does that mean we're seeing a lot of V/IV's? Does that mean the composer is using the b7 as a chromatic passing tone? What does that explanation MEAN? IT doesn't mean a lot, because it isn't descriptive and it purposefully disregards the simplest, and most direct explanation.

If a passage, section, or workable majority of a piece of music is based on or around a mode that is not the major/minor, then it is perhaps satisfactory as a means of explaining the melodic makeup of that piece or section of music.
Last edited by chronowarp at Dec 13, 2012,
#104
it's important to consider that there's a system of diminishing returns in the argument that modes are a method of more simplistic (and thereby more efficient = better) analysis because they are specific, even in a tonal context, when referring to a specific pattern of notes. there aren't a whole heck of a lot of pieces with only 7 notes, or only one key, and even in those contexts, there's a contention, but i think the issue is fundamentally with how easily the word "modes" is thrown around here without further clarification

when you talk about modes, you need to make it clear if you're referring to tonality based on a scale rather than the tonal characteristics of legitimate modes if you're trying to argue that modal scales are fast methods of analysis. by putting the modes (as forms of the major scale rather than a method of composition and analysis in a historical context) on a pedestal as their own branch of tonality, you're essentially setting up a scale up as on-par with a key in the context of that section, and that's turning 24 potential keys into literally thousands. you know better than that, i'd think, because you understand the difference between modes (as a system) and keys, but when you're using the word "modes" to mean both systems as well as scales (which, of course, exist as a pattern of underlying structure under the major or minor modes of a key), there's a point where you can't give them equal weight as a harmonic tool.

personally, i wouldn't analyze a song based on what scale i'm using, but it all depends on what's easiest and what needs to be communicated. this is the key issue, i think. in a scenario where it's obvious it's a major scale with a b7, call it mixolydian, whatever, but as i said before, it's not always going to be that simple, and unless the composer was specifically writing with scale changes in mind, or a piece is so harmonically simple that you can stick it in one key or scale, it becomes inefficient to try and use them as a sticker term. even in those situations, honestly i don't think an experienced musician really needs the clarification if it's marked on the sheet music or if they can hear what they're to perform, which they'll need anyway unless you want them to just guess the rhythm and order of notes or something.

but outside of that kind of scenario where it's a static piece, and thereby you can define it however you prefer, anything with multiple modulations, a large number of accidentals, chromaticism, etc. will become exponentially harder to keep track of as a scale, or series of scales, because a scale is absolutely secondary to the functional tonal center and mode quality (major/minor). the ability to outline a piece based on a number of pitches goes out the window when the bigger tonal function outlining the piece changes.

within a key, you can have all 12 notes provided the function is secure, and within a scale (including the modal scales), you can only have 7, so yes, that's more specific (and thereby efficient) in terms of note choice, but short of using CST to solo over sightread chord changes to speed up your reaction time, or there's a straight scale run, i find it hard to clunk up an analysis with "the composer uses this scale here, this scale here" when it's more efficient to denote what the piece is functionally and let the performer associate the odd notes however they might do so comfortably.

a lot of confusion here isn't because people don't understand modes, but because it seems like there are (at least) 3 definitions of the word, and instead of just saying "scales" or "CST" or "major or minor key" to differentiate a method of thought based on certain interval patterns, the quality of a tonal center, and an archaic system of analysis, it becomes very easy to mix up the context the word is being used, which makes it really easy to get annoyed over semantics and very hard to tell if someone knows what they're talking about.

when a beginner reads us talking about modes, though, and somebody says "modes are just a primitive system of tonality that were used in music you'll probably never listen to, and they're basically a genre or era in the scope of tonal music rather than a modern tool", i'd say that's right. similarly, modes are also defined (through textbooks and many credible scholars with more credentials than anybody here) as interval patterns derived from modality, and that's right too. however, they aren't connected - they're 2 different people, just both named tom. i try to deny calling the modal scales "modes" as well because of my personal opinions on scales being vastly over-prioritized, but i'd rather go back to arguing about scales and shapes in a learning environment and knowing what we're fighting about rather than the current state of raw annoyance and confusion.

i have my opinion on both of the "modes" and i'd gladly expound upon them and evolve them, cause i think i remember at one point it being possible to do here, but we really need to get a way to differentiate the two so this kind of an annoying clusterfuck stops happening and i can go back to actually posting long, rambling asides like this without x'ing out because somebody's going to misconstrue something and it's only going to get cumulatively worse until somebody starts talking shit about me for not being homeless
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#105
Quote by chronowarp
You're a hoot man. Why do you flippantly assume and disrespect other people over an issue that's entirely semantics? We've been over this numerous times. I don't need to "go back to basics" I have a ****ing degree in music, and teach this shit regularly.

Mixolydian is a tonality - all modes are distinct tonalities. We have a two key system based on the major & minor modes, hinged together w/ functional harmony, yes, and while it is satisfactory in most instances in describing the overall makeup of most Western music it is not an end-all, and it is not the ONLY satisfactory explanation.

Your method fails, in that, it rejects a much SIMPLER and DESCRIPTIVE explanation simply for absolute, irrefutable consistency.

If a section of a piece of music is clearly Mixolydian, in what the melody & music communicate, but it is encompassed as a whole composition, within a key, that does not mean it cannot and shall not be called Mixolydian.

Your method would be, "****IN NOOB ITS IN THE KEY OF G, WITH A BUNCH OF CHROMATIC b7'S". The reason that explanation is unsatisfactory is because it doesn't really communicate anything about what the melody sounds like or is implying. Saying something is in the key of G with accidentals isn't descriptive in any meaningful way. It has b7 accidentals? Does that mean we're seeing a lot of V/IV's? Does that mean the composer is using the b7 as a chromatic passing tone? What does that explanation MEAN? IT doesn't mean a lot, because it isn't descriptive and it purposefully disregards the simplest, and most direct explanation.

If a passage, section, or workable majority of a piece of music is based on or around a mode that is not the major/minor, then it is perhaps satisfactory as a means of explaining the melodic makeup of that piece or section of music.


if you say so, socrates there's a lot you're not taking into account. even a child could tell whether the b7 is acting as a passing tone, or part of a secondary dominant, or related to something still. they might not be able to put it into words, but if even they can tell, then a seasoned musician worth as much as a pile of shit should be able to make heads or tails of something solely with the given "it's in G". worst comes to worst? throw him a chord chart. the things you're taking into account are extremely simple issues that any decent musician can overcome. frankly, i don't think you know shit all about my method, except for the broad (and fallacious) categorization you present of it.

"most" instances? if you really believe that, then i have no problem telling you to go back to basics - i don't care what degree you have. i don't care if you have 17 music doctorates. if you tell me that there is one piece of western music out there that cannot be described using a key or keys, i will tell you to go relearn your intervals. wrong information is wrong information, and credentials are rendered worthless in such an instance.

if mixolydian is a tonality to you, go for it. do your thing. have fun using your 7 notes. i'll be calling it a major key, and remain open to utilizing the possibility of accidentals. if you really want to argue, go ahead and tell me all about how you can have accidentals in a modal piece. shoot yourself in the foot and tell me there are more than two keys. i'm okay with that.

however you want to do it, pal. my motto is "show me better and i will follow". this method is not better - or else i'd be following it. why? because i've seen it countless times before here on UG. it's even been pushed down my throat on a few occasions.

if you think you're too advanced to learn a thing or two, that's fine - it's said that only death can cure a fool. once a fool, always a fool - he is not open to a change in thought process.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#106
Holy ****ing strawman.

My argument isn't that modes are a more satisfactory explanation in place of keys. My argument is that pretending that reducing every musical composition to a key and using that as the ONLY method of explanation is LIMITING, especially when there is a simpler, more direct explanation.
#107
just to lighten the mood:
Matthew Kane
November 28
This film just keeps getting better and better:

Yesterday in the afternoon I was standing out on the side of the highway filming a narrative about how hard it is to get a ride along with a statement DEFENDING homeless people, saying that society judges homeless people based on a very small percentage of bad people.

As I am saying this two rainbow kid drifters start walking towards me with their stuff, they wander into the shot, walk right up to me - where I am trying to hitch to get a ride home - and throw their stuff down. I was saying, "Not all homeless people are bad..."

I look up, at them, and they are staring at me. I say, "Listen man I'm just trying to hitch to the next exit can you guys give me a couple of minutes to get out of here? No on is going stop with three of us standing here."

On film the guys says, "We were here this morning this is our spot."

I just looked at him, camera directly on him, and say, "really?" He says, "Yup" and defiantly stares at me like he about to *try* to kick my ass if I don't leave.

I looked at him for minute, and then said, "Look guys, I'm trying to make a film about homelessness right now to help people like you who are stuck out in the streets."

He says, "I don't give a ****. Turn that ****ing camera off you are not allowed to film me." I say, "We are outside, in public, and I can most certainly film you right now."

Then the girl starts yelling at me, saying, "I'll ****ing kill you if you don't get that camera off of me." Then they guy, who is restraining their dog, pulls out a knife. Still filming, I'm like, "Do you think that is a good idea?" He says, "**** you asshole I'm going to sick my dog on you." He lets go of the leash, the dog latched onto my sleeping bag. Now I have a woman screaming in my face, a dog ripping at my sleeping bag, and a guy with a knife in my face.

I turned around, started walking away. As I'm walking away the police are pulling up. The cop pulls up, gets out, and says, "What the hell is going on here?" I say, "I'm a filmmaker making a film about homelessness and I'm done." I just walked away. The cop gets out of his car and starts walking towards the two homeless people, and that was it. I kept walking, angry, indignant.

I walked 4 miles to the next exit. Then, I started offering to pay people for a ride south. I asked 100 people over 12 hours, who were all heading south, if I could pay them for a ride. All of them said no.

At this point I have been awake for over 36 hours after the ordeal the night before where a tranny offered me a ride, then demanded sex in exchange for the ride. When I refused he left me 10 miles outside of town, and then took off with my cigarettes and lighter.

I was exhausted, ready to collapse. I decided to ask one more person. It was a kid. He said, "Me and my girlfriend are stranded here trying to get south if you can put some fuel in the tank we can go."

I put some gas in his tank, we took off. I got dropped off at a travel center about 100 miles south. Thinking my ordeal was over I got into the shower, and then something happened. When the water hit my head it triggered some emotional response. Still filming myself - in the shower - I started crying. Then I talked about how much it hurt to have to fight to feel the feeling of hot water pouring down over my body. This was the second shower I have had in 14 days.

Then I put the camera down, and just cried, letting the water pour all over me until I calmed down. I stood up to wash my hair. No soap. When I saw the soap dispenser was empty I just started laughing because the practical joke that is my life is very entertaining to me sometimes.

I got out of the shower, dried off, got dressed, went to put on my shoes, and then noticed that my shoes were wet, soaked. I looked around, the molding below the shower was defective, my shoes, which were both upside down had sopped up the water.

I walked out in the hall, asked the attendant if he could help me dry my shoes. He said, "No." He was standing right next to a dryer. I said, "Listen, I have to go back outside. I can't go out with wet shoes." He angrily waived his arms, walked away, and said something under his breath "....dirty homeless person..."

I took my wet shoes to the counter, explained who I am and what I am doing. I asked her if she could please help me get my shoes dry. She says, "No, that would be unsanitary." I begged her to please help me get my shoes dry. She still refused, and then I said something about the soap. The looks at me laughs at me, and walks away.

About two minutes later, the attended comes back, and says "There is soap in the shower come look." He went and filled the soap dispenser, came back, got the manager to show her I was "lying." But I had taken a photo of the empty soap dispenser.

I showed her the picture, and then some truck driver jumps in calls me a liar - while I'm hold the photo of the empty dispenser which the manager has flatly refused to look at "I don't want to see it there was soap. You are a liar." I began to protest. The truck driver looks at me and says, "If you don't leave here I am going to kick your ass you dirty street rat."

I'd had enough at this point, trannies, knives, dogs, death threats, 100 people who left me for dead, no soap, wet shoes, and now another person who has decided they are going to hurt me without knowing a damn thing about me.

I walked outside, the angry clouds forming above me, wind blowing at 30 miles an hour, walked to a Denny's. I ordered coffee, asked where there was a laundromat. I told her what had happened. She said, "You can sleep in one of the booths if you want until I leave."

I slept until 4am. She woke me up. I started walking down the street, and then it started to rain. I couldn't find anywhere to sleep. I ended up finding a large piece of wood outside of a factory. I set up my sleeping bag, got in it, and then laid the board on top of me so the rain would run off of it.

When I woke up this morning my right arm was burning. There was some chemical on the board that burned the skin on my right arm from my shoulder to my elbow.

I walked to McDonald's, got online, and there was an e-mail offering to get me 150 miles closer to home. I'll be leaving in 4 hours. Then, I will be about 75 miles away from home.

Really world?
Like · · Share
2 people like this.


this guy is such a character, i wish he'd stuck around ahahaha
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#108
Let me reduce this even more so it can make sense for you, big wolf.

If a piece of music is based on a melodic motif that is diatonic to the G mixolydian mode, with the exception of a cadence point, wherein the V chord is introduced, and thusly, the leading tone. Which explanation is more useful in describing this musical situation:

A. It's in the key of G. Modes don't exist.
B. It's in the key of G, but features a motif that is strongly represented by the Mixolydian mode.

What harm do you come across by using the word mode as a complimentary tool in describing the melodic character/contour of a section or piece of music?

Everything I have read by you can be reduced to "Keys are the only explanatory tool for music", and any claim outside of that very narrow confine is either wrong, ignorant, or misguided.

You shouldn't allow yourself to confine your explanations and understanding of music to some hyperbolic, super specific, no exceptions policy, that's purely a reaction to a common misunderstanding in the GUITAR COMMUNITY.

Please find me a music theory scholar or teacher that is so indignant and apprehensive of the word mode...oh wait...they don't exist.
Last edited by chronowarp at Dec 13, 2012,
#109
i was explaining that modes, in the "modern" sense, are just scales. there isn't a "phrygian dominant" tonality or a "chromatic" tonality, and the way you worded it strongly suggested that the mixolydian scale had a convention to it that was detached from the mode, and at that point it's impossible to argue for conciseness and specificity when it's impossible for somebody to tell whether you're referring to a scale or a tonal derivative of a 400-year-old hymn.

i actually didn't mean to suggest that you were arguing over anything short of what you're comfortable with doing in short-hand - the issue was with the way you worded it more than anything. i have my own problems with approaching things with scales rather than keys in any context, but i'm not gonna bring them into it because the issue is understanding the difference. i'm assuming you do, semantics aside, but when you replace the word "modes" with "scales", it becomes a lot easier to see my viewpoint, i'd like to think.

for example, you'd need to define E mixolydian (the scale) as well as E major (the key) if you were going to define something that resolved on E major and had the notes E F# G# A B C# D. since keys > scales, but they both exist, the idea that you'd define something as either "G mixolydian" or "G major" doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive, and you'd define it as both if you wished to break the piece down to the scale beyond the tonic and its quality.

i'm having to delete a lot to try and be civilized and impartial without butchering my point, and it's really jarring to use mode names, but i think i can hold off on a rant until we have another "which scale should i learn next??" thread
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#112
"What are modes"?

Modes are a way of starting an argument between two or more musicians in an online comment system.
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#113
no shut up i'm drawing a line in the sand from now on you need to define modes as either a system or a series of intervals if you're going to refer to it because otherwise you become homeless
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#114
"What are modes"?

Modes are systematic means of starting an argument between two or more musicians in an online comment system.

Happy now?
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#115
Quote by chronowarp
Your method would be, "****IN NOOB ITS IN THE KEY OF G, WITH A BUNCH OF CHROMATIC b7'S". The reason that explanation is unsatisfactory is because it doesn't really communicate anything about what the melody sounds like or is implying. Saying something is in the key of G with accidentals isn't descriptive in any meaningful way. It has b7 accidentals? Does that mean we're seeing a lot of V/IV's? Does that mean the composer is using the b7 as a chromatic passing tone? What does that explanation MEAN? IT doesn't mean a lot, because it isn't descriptive and it purposefully disregards the simplest, and most direct explanation.


You have a point. For a key to truly emulate modal music it would have to be known that accidentals were fixed and constant. With the key system of notation as we have it this is not explicit. It can only be determined by examining the usage of the accidental.

But I don't think the descriptive advantage gained by using mode names is a great one, and in any case an equivalent to it could easily be incorporated into the way we talk about keys.

If we were to append a description of fixed accidentals to the key name, e.g. "G Major (b7)" for Mixolydian, in a similar way to how we described altered chords, it would make the key name fully descriptive. It would also remove the need for mode names (and their concomitant confusion). And it would also add to the sound possibilities - we could explore the use of other fixed accidentals than the ones in the named modes.

We would know the signature sounds of the accidentals in the same way we know the signature sounds of the modes. We would also retain all the advantages of the key system of describing music without needing to learn another system.
#116
The thing is...any accidental could mean a variety of different things based on the context.

I'm not even saying my hypothetical scenario is an extremely common issue - it's not. I'm simply demonstrating how adhering to "there are only two keys - nothing else matters" isn't ALWAYS the best method of explanation.
#117
Quote by Hail
i was explaining that modes, in the "modern" sense, are just scales.


But any scale can be re-arranged to form a chord, just as any chord can be re-arranged to form a (section of a) scale. You can think of modes as either scalar re-arrangements of extended chords, or vice versa.

However you think of them though they don't imply a different tonality, they're just coloration. Except sometimes (e.g. Ionian scale / Major scale; Aeolian scale / Natural minor scale) when they're not coloration because the modal scale is identical to some sequential permutation of the Major / Minor scale.
Quote by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
#118
Quote by Sleepy__Head
But any scale can be re-arranged to form a chord, just as any chord can be re-arranged to form a (section of a) scale. You can think of modes as either scalar re-arrangements of extended chords, or vice versa.


i didn't go into defining or extending the idea of a scale on purpose. i used to get into all kinds of bitch fests with guitarmunky and many others over scales and wanted to take the path of least resistance and not go off on a tangent

in any case, scales fall below keys in terms of functionality and importance. to say that modes and keys can exist together is a misnomer because of the duality of the word - modes (historically) can't coexist with keys because the tonal system swallowed up modality, so it's necessary to define one or the other, while a modal scale (or a scale with accidentals, call it whatever you like) can exist in a key because it's nothing but a series of intervals and in a given key any note is fair play.

similarly, if you say "this piece is in E mixolydian", it should mean it's legitimately modal. more likely, however, you mean to say "this piece is in E major and, more specifically, the E mixolydian scale is emphasized". the scale doesn't tell you what the resolution is - just what notes are in that scale - so it's something that we need to be more conscious of so as to not confuse one another.

again, i have personal thoughts concerning both definitions, and i think most people here have their own understanding of at least one, so depending on syntax it can be very easy to start a shitstorm by misinterpreting a person's thought process. things like "i'm in e mixolydian" are typically misnomers by overstating the boundaries of what a scale is, even if you are in the e mixolydian scale, just by the wording suggesting that you mean the song is functionally modal in the same way "i'm in e major" would suggest that you're in the key of e major rather than someone assuming you're using the e major scale.

it's all down to semantics, but most of us are really serious about what we do, especially those who are working for/have degrees and who teach regularly, and semantics and details become a pretty big source of contention.
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#119
Quote by Jehannum
For a key to truly emulate modal music it would have to be known that accidentals were fixed and constant. With the key system of notation as we have it this is not explicit. It can only be determined by examining the usage of the accidental.


Except accidentals were used in modal music...