Talk:Mode (music)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notable songs in [mode x] is original research

I don't want to be an ass but I think the notable songs sections on the mode pages don't belong on wikipedia as it's original research. I think the best would be if someone would set up a (simple) website and do some research on all the mentioned songs, publish them there and then refer to them here. I'd do it, but I don't think I have enough musical knowledge for that. CheesePlease NL

I think it may be Kathleen Schlesinger (The Greek Aulos) or Elsie Hamilton who created that system of numbered modes. Dsunlin (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Major and minor

How about naming them something like:

Lydian      Very Major
Ionian      Major
Myxolydian  Slightly Major
Dorian      Slightly Minor
Aolian      Minor
Phrygian    Very Minor
Locrian     Too Minor

--- User:Karl Palmen

I don't think locrian is a minor mode; it's more of a "diminished" mode, not to be confused with the diminished scale. Whether a mode is major or minor is determined by whether or not its tonic chord is a major or minor chord, so locrian kind of sits off on its own. After all, it does in every other respect (e.g., it's the only one that's almost unusable, etc.). The only thing that would make it minor is if we go by whether only the third is major or minor, not the third and the fifth. But that doesn't make sense to me.--Furrykef 06:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC), modified 11 May 2004

Some of the scales do have elements of the major or minor scales (Ionian/Aeolian), but I think that calling Lydian "very major" for example would mean as much as calling the major scale "very Lydian."

Also, for the sake of correctness, the order of the modes should probably be Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and then Locrian. This way they're consistent with the scale degrees they represent. Unsigned edit by 69.157.49.181.

You don't understand. In the sequence given, each mode has one more "smaller" interval than the previous one (counting from the root). So the sequence is definitely correct and the naming meaningful. −Woodstone 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also a cycle of fifths, by the way. But, I don't think we should talk about a degree of "major"ity or "minor"ity. How can you be "too minor"? It's very vague. Why look at the older modes through the filter of major-minor tonality anyway? (Why not look at tonal modes through the filter of modality?) The most meaningful description I've seen of the character of modes identifies them by tetrachord. Naming the tetrachords after the lower tetrachord of each of the four original modes:

• Lydian: Lydian, Ionian
• Ionian: Ionian, Ionian
• Myxolydian: Ionian, Dorian
• Dorian: Dorian, Dorian
• Aolian: Dorian, Phrygian
• Phrygian: Phrygian, Phrygian
• Locrian: Phrygian, Lydian

This also speaks to their construction. At any rate, though, I don't think either of these tables really belongs in the article. The construction of the modes is well defined already, and the subjective characters they possess are already listed. - Rainwarrior 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The order makes perfect sense as with each row a note is flattened. As well as the flattened notes going round the cycle of 5ths, so do the KEYS from which the scales are derived. Dominant7flat9 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All of this reasoning takes off from having no idea of where music comes from. The order of modes is given, in good music theory books (not guitar magazines, for example), in the order they are found on a major scale because the major scale gives a stable context of derivation. And the tetrachord only does not give identification to the whole mode, so it's confusing and limited... It's all pretty artificial, today, anyway, since modes are just a simplistic way of describing the limited melodic content of a song.--David Be (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, describing the modes in terms of major/minor is anachronistic. It only happens because jazz theory has co-opted the Church modes. Jmclark56 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Light and dark

Ha!

They are traditionally held on a "darkness" continuum, where in that order it goes from Lydian (the brightest, with that perky II7 chord) all the way down to Phrygian's V diminished and it's evil flat II maj 7. User:J.F.Quackenbush 19:29, 11 August 2002 (UTC)

Greek towns?

Does anyone else think that the stuff about Greeks and towns and soldiers is a probably romanticised and highly exaggerated? Anyway, the Greek names we use now were assigned by Glareanus in the 16th century and are not actually consistent with the original Greek system, of which he only had a limited understanding --PS4FA 20:41, 7 June 2003 (UTC)

I've modified that part a bit, what do you think? -- Merphant

Why is there no mention of "ethos"? And what about the tetrachord structiure of tghe Greek mopdes.Wasn't it Plato's Republic that discusses the ethicalcharacter of music. But that includes rhythm and tone colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.186.100 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that looks better. I guess I would have put a "supposedly" or "allegedly" in front of the bit about modal preferences of different towns as I tend to be fairly sceptical of this sort of thing. Even if there are contemporary accounts recording it, these were probably just snapshots of changing musical fashions. Still, I suppose that even these days we talk about the "Mersey sound", the "Bristol sound", the "Nashville sound", etc. --PS4FA 13:39, 8 June 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd tell use where in ancient Greece was the town of Lydia located? Likewise for Doria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.186.100 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Messiaen's 'modes'

So, the next question is, do Messiaen's modes of limited transposition belong here, or should they have their own article? --PS4FA 13:39, 8 June 2003 (UTC)

Mention and link to them here, and give them their own article, I say (I've been thinking about an article on them for a while, but will be very hapypy if somebody else does it, hint hint ;) --Camembert

OK, then, I'll have a go --PS4FA 13:28, 9 June 2003 (UTC)

Church mode?

What does "church mode" mean, exactly?

--Furrykef 06:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• The church modes are the ones used in the renaissance period, and they correspond to the ionian through to aeolian modes. However, this article fails to make clear which modes were used at which times and how they were called. Beyond the church modes and the more modern modal system I'm not very clear on it myself, so I'd be grateful if this article could be organised with much stronger chronological context, by someone with more idea of what they're talking about than myself --Thomas 17:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It's much worse. The Modes as they arrise in the Byzantine church are mentioned but obscured by a discussion of the syntethsis only after lengthy discussion of Boethius being misunderstood. As I understand it, the church modes originate in Byzantium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 10:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment was from nearly five years ago, and likely referred to something that has been long since deleted. However, it was hardly an accurate observation, since Ionian, Hypoionian, Aelioan, and Hypoaeolian are not accepted into the theory of church modes until after 1547, and even then they remained contentious for some time. The impression given by the editors of the Liber Usualis, that chant theory did not develop further after this point is false, and no doubt motivated by the struggle for domination in this field by German and French factions in the nineteenth century, ultimately won by the French (Solesmes), who did of course roll back the (arguably hopelessly corrupt) work of the Cecilian movement. I agree that the discussion of the alleged medieval misunderstanding of Boethius is obscuring more important things. As for Byzantine origins, I think it is generally agreed that, although the system of oktoechos had some influence on the Western theory of modes, the modal system was fundamentally developed by Carolingian scholars, not derived directly from Byzantium. At least, that is my reading of Powers's landmark article in the New Grove.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

-Ah, thank's for the clarification. I'm currently re-reading all I can find on the Greek modes and the church modes. Of particular interest to me are the confluences, cross-roads between west and east where Byzantium always occupies a special place. What is still unclear to me is this 'original moment' in the 9th/8th century. It seems that in this span the texts that most clearly illustrate the music and texts of the liturgy? In any case, the scholarship mentioned in the article is obscures original texts BOTH where the greek (before my edits, Pythagoras was not mentioned even once) and the church is concerned? Mwasheim (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. It should be emphasized (as Powers certainly does—perhaps this needs some work in the present article), that the ancient Greeks did not have "modes". Rather this concept was evolved in western Europe during the early Middle Ages, and only came to be applied restrospectively to Greek music by musicologists in comparatively recent times. The "original moment" must be regarded as the late-8th-century Tonary of St Riquier, and the first theoretical discussions those of Aurelian of Réôme, the anonymous authors of the composite treatise Alia musica, and Hucbald—only the latter is already named in the article—though even here we have Latin precedents in the writings of Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville (amongst lesser lights), bridging the gap between Boethius and the Carolingians.

Ancient Greek theory is a complicated business, not least because the sources are spread over a period of some five hundred years, but the inter-relations between octave species, tonoi, and harmoniai certainly are involved as precedents for the modes of the Western Church, principally transmitted through the writings of Martianus Capella and Boethius. I am not well-enough read in Byzantine theory to feel comfortable with the details of the octoechos system, but I do know that its relationship to ancient Greek theory is a matter of some debate. Their influence on the Western system is undoubted, though I believe the closest relationship is with the Psalm tones, rather than with the modes as such (like the Psalm tones, each of the octoechoi is classified first by opening formulas, then by middle and closing patterns). It should not be too difficult to find a credible source or two for this (Powers's article has a section on the subject).

Pythagoras is a problem inasmuch as we do not have any writings from him directly, and what we do have from his followers attributes nothing at all to him concerning "modes" (that is, tonoi, harmoniai, etc.)—only tuning. This much is of course necessary to mention, particularly because Pythagoras is named by so many later writers as their authority, and this group of so-called Pythagorians forms the larger faction in the debate over tunings, in which Aristoxenos is the main authority in opposition.

It does seem to me that there is a great danger of bogging this article down in too much of this stuff but, on the other hand, too-glib a simplification is also bound to result in problems.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the clarification. It is exactly the bogging down which I'd prefer to avoid. Sadly the article required me to read books (starting with the Chalmers which is from the 1990s) in order to make any sense of the gloss on greek leading to church (meaning in this case West as though it could have existed without the history of byzantium!). The word Mode we appear to have from Latin, not from the greeks. The history of the tetrachord to the 'gamut' in greek theory is NECESSARY to any understanding of mode. This is a conundrum. If we start to expound the 'gamut' to get to the greater 'system' we'll never get to the western church, let alone Jazz in the gamut of this article. My main concern with the gloss as it is? It skips the Pythagoras (ok, I hastily added him) AND doesn't cover the lineage from Pythagoras - Archytas - Aristoxenian - Ptolomy. In all, it just mystifies more than it should.Mwasheim (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dahlhaus reference?

A reference is made in "History" to "Carl Dahlhaus (1990)", but the references section doesn't give the text. Anyone have a full bibliographical reference for that? It ought to be added...

Done. Hyacinth 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated point, perhaps a reference to "tetrachords" ought to be thrown in.. I'm not sure where. --Yourcelf 18:33, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

Confusing Passage

"The iv minor chord in second inversion with the tonic doubled is a good I chord for Locrian because it is the exact reverse of a major chord."

What does this mean, exactly? Could somebody clear this up?—Trevor Caira 18:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (in B locrian) "The iv (E) minor chord (E,G,B) in second inversion (B,E,G) with the tonic (B) doubled (B,E,G,B) is a good I (tonic) chord for Locrian because it is the exact reverse (inversion) of a major chord."

In B locrian (B, C, D, E, F, G, A) the IV chord is E, G, and B. Its second inversion is "spelled" B, E, G, with the tonic doubled: B, E, G, B. The inversion of those intervals gives B, D, F#, B: a major chord.

I highlighted errors in terminology, but the suggestion itself may be faulty though not without reason or sense:

The actual I chord in locrian is a diminished chord (i^o), and thus somewhat unsuitable as a tonic or final chord (see resolution). The suggestion is then to use another chord in some inversion, the IV chord in second inversion, and pretend it is the tonic.

One could argue that this idea may be true but explained using the wrong terms, or one could argue, assuming a diminished chord is unexceptable as a tonic, that treating another chord as the tonic changes the sense or feel of locrian more than simply sharpening the fifth (changing F to F# to create a minor chord (i): B,D,F#).

Regardless, this all appears to be original research...

...but I would love to see a source/citation for this assertion. Hyacinth 01:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, you've mentioned "intervals". I think all/most references to intervals have been taken out of the article, so it is impossible in principle for the casual reader to understand what "inversion" means.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDart (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correspondence between church, modern modes

It's not really clear on a first reading that when you start the "Modern modes" section, the "church mode" terminology no longer applies. My main thought at this point was, "wait, they just said we should use Roman numerals to disambiguate, and now they're back to the names." I now see that you use the Roman numerals for the 'church' modes, because the Greek names are (now) taken to refer to the 'modern' modes.

I would rephrase things (where the Roman numerals are first introduced, and at the top of the "Modern modes" section), but I'm not sure whether to say in the latter that "there is no correspondence between the mediaeval church modes and the modern modes" or "there is only a loose correspondence between some of the church modes and the modern modes". If the latter, it would be nice if there were some sort of table laying out the correspondences. (For example, it looks like a modern D Dorian really does correspond to a mediaeval Dorian aka "Mode I", but that might just be me being naïve.) (Blahedo 23:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Like others, I am confused about the different sets of modes. "The names of the church modes are Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian" ... fair enough, but aren't those the exact names of the seven Modern modes described further down? I thought there were eight Church modes, the included "Hypo-" versions, and they didn't include Locrian, etc. Also, there is talk about Aristotle and Plato in the Church modes section, which seems more appropriate to the previous section. Finally, having established that a given term like Phrygian mode has different meanings whether you are using the Greek, Church, or Modern definitions, maybe the section on "Use of the modes" should make clear which definition is being used (I suspect people use Modern definitions unless otherwise specified but I can't swear to it). Boris B 10:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The mediaeval and modern modes are essentially the same. However, the church did not use all the possible modes in the modern scheme, and interpreted them quite differently. The church modes focused on their use in chanting, and the important reciting note and final. The church also used plagal modes based on the same scale as the authentic modes, but with different reciting and final notes. These plagal modes are known by the name of the authentic mode with the prefix hypo- added. The Greek modes, from which the mediaeval modes arose, are quite different. They are based on Greek tetrachord theory, and the names given to the modes apply to different modes in the mediaeval/modern scheme. The Greeks also made use of enharmonic and chromatic modes beside the diatonic modes, and some of the mode names refer to such modes in the Greek scheme, whereas the mediaeval/modern scheme is completely diatonic. — Gareth Hughes 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Musical Notation

The use of 'si' in the solfege of this article is ambiguous. For consistancy, the use of 'ti' in refering to the major seventh would likely be prefered, and reserve the use of 'si' in refering to the augmented fifth. See the solfege page for details.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.77 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2004 (UTC)

Move this article?

Why is musical mode a better title than mode (music)? Michael Hardy 00:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Hyacinth 01:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, "mode (music)" redirects appropriately. Probably not worth worrying about... /blahedo (t) 04:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "Mode (music)" is a more appropriate title of this article. Not one of my college music theory or music history courses used the term "Musical mode". --Trelawnie (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Theme Example

I am wondering about the theme song from "The Simpsons" being listed as an example of the Lydian mode. It definitely has the raised 4th, but it also prominently features a lowered 7th, so technically, it is in the so-called "Lydian Dominant" mode. Perhaps it should be used as an example of that mode. --Locrian 23:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example clarified. /blahedo (t) 04:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Lydian confusion

This article is extremely confusing and has several errors, possibly. The picture showing the scales seems wrong. The Lydian scale has a lowered 4th degree (Bb), the the text goes on about how characteristic the raised 4th is. DrG 05:54, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Reality: actually the lydian mode has a raised 4th

First, there are two Lydian modes. See Lydian mode#Medieval and modern Lydian mode for the one with the raised fourth (in comparison to the major scale. F Major: F G A Bb C D E, Lydian: F G A B C D E). The Lydian mode#Greek Lydian mode is apparently identical to the major (its fourth degree is Bb, which is not lowered, see below).

Secondly, Bb is not a "lowered fourth degree" (the fourth degree of a major scale on F is Bb. "Lowered fourth degree", despite the lack of context, meant "lowered in relation to the major scale").

Lastly, the article no longer refers to "lowered" or "raised" degrees. Hyacinth 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This simply seems to promote the idea of a rewrite. There are no lines between Greek, Church or Modern modes beyond the text itself. The examples should stated which model they refer to. Kakugo 13:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be naive, but I thought the characteristic of the modes was that they were scales built on each of the degrees of the major scale using no accidentals, which would lend to the argument that the Lydian with the tritone interval between root and fourth is the more appropriate to list in the illustrations as the Lydian scale.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dorian vs. Blues

It's incorrect to say that the Dorian mode is the same as the blues scale. The blues scale is 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7, whereas Dorian is 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7. The blues scale is really a minor pentatonic scale with a b5 added. I'm going to remove this sentence from the article.--Rictus 8 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, however the anon editor insists on adding back Dorian = Blues again and again. The only thing Dorian and the Blues scale have in common is the skeleton of the minor pentatonic.

     Dorian:  D   E   F - G    A   B   C   D
     Blues:   D       F - G G# A       C   D

Antandrus (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You do realise that all minor modes have those same notes as the blues scale? Anyway the blues scale is just the pentatonic minor with an added tritone. Pentatonic minor are just the common notes in each minor mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.210 (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern modes section

I think the "Modern modes" section could be made clearer. The simplest explanation for the modern modes is that they are the scales you get by starting on each successive degree of the major scale; this isn't really explained directly. I added the Roman numerals to the different Greek names as a stopgap, but it seems like this section should be more explicit (especially given how much attention is paid to the old church modes, which aren't really relevant in current music theory). If I have time later on, I'll try to rework this. --Rictus 07:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Also the bt about Locrian mode being unusable needs work. People use it all the time...ergo, useable.--Josh Rocchio 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please rework it, Rictus. Consider removing the Church Modes section to its own page, as well. This article is now so confusing that it's almost impossible to read. And I'm not speaking as a lay person.Levalley (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I notice that you are resuming a discussion after a gap of three years, and the "Modern modes" section has been considerably reworked in the meantime. Second, I would like to point out that you are recommending reversal of a merger made around that same time (see "Merge from Church modes", above). You are correct, however, about this article being confusing. This is in part because the subject itself is confusing, even (perhaps especially) to experts, but that is not the whole story. Work is ongoing to straighten out some misrepresentations in the historical areas. If you have suggestions of your own, please jump right in.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Affect

"Affect" is correct here and not a typo of "effect". Hyacinth 10:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I "Reverted edits by Falstaft (talk) to last version by Blahedo" because the information originally in the paragraph is sourced and the addition made it seem as if those assertions where also sourced. Hyacinth 09:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Locrian

Doesn't the Locrian mode have perfect 4th and diminished 5th (not vice versa)?

Yes. joshbuddy^talk 08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right and doesn't it make the pattern even stand out better? −Woodstone 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Project for Mode Articles: Standardization and Consolidation

The mode articles are a mess when taken together. The articles need to be standardized and some of the general information consolidated into this article and removed from the articles about specific modes.

a few specific propositions:

corresponding information

I think all the mode articles should have corresponding information in corresponding sections. For example, the intervals that define the mode should be given at say, somewhere near the top of the article in a section called "intervals" or something (whatever, as long as its standard for all articles and maximally descriptive). Also things like if the scale is "symmetric" or "asymmetiric" or whether its a "minor" or "major" scale should be all in one place (perhaps a table would be best for these things).

Information about modes in general

All information that is about modes in general (i.e. applies to all modes) should be moved to this article, and not mentioned in the articles about specific modes (all articles should of course be linked to this article). Information about idiosyncratic properties of the modes then will be easier to find that way, and there will be no confused and redundant info (sorta like this paragraph).

Greek vs. modern terminology confusion'

Information about the confusion between the greek and modern terminology should stay in this article, with a note at the top of each article--out of the main body--highlighting the terminology confusion (to eschew obfuscation). Perhaps there should be serperate disambiguable articles for the greek modes e.g. a article for Ionian (Greek Mode) and Ionian (Gregorian Mode).

avoiding articl style divergence with later editors not privy to the standardization project

As time passes, people who don't know about the effort to standardize the article no doubt will add information to the article in their own style, perhaps causing the articles to diverge in style over time. To avoid this, we can make a template to go at the top of each talk page that tells editors to keep in mind the style standardization (perhaps a project page--"metawiki pages" I think they are called--with a template and style explanation). Although this may not be that much of a problem, if the style isobvious and is suffieciently elegant to begin with.

Am I getting across the idea here? What do you guys think about such a project? I know there is a way to set up a wikiproject for this sort of thing, but I've never done it before. I'll look into how to do it. Any other ideas on how to make the articles fit better together? Any objections or improvements to the above suggestions? --Brentt 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd merge them all together into an article Modes of the diatonic scale, but these are good suggestions regardless. —Keenan Pepper 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I think it's better to have them as separate pages, because it makes incoming links easier to follow (i.e., an article can say such-and-such is in Dorian and the reader can see much faster what that means instead of trying to understand the whole system of modes). I don't think the Greek modes need separate pages, as they are quite infrequently referenced. I would put their information after the modern mode (except for the mention in the introduction) for that reason. Probably an infobox would be a good way to standardize the format; perhaps being a list of which scale degrees are major or minor (or diminished), symmetricity, etc. Rigadoun 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea and am willing to help the editing process. I agree that the Greek modes probably don't need their own page, but a section on the relevant Greek mode of the same name could be part of the standard template. I also think an info box is a good idea, possibly with a picture of the mode displayed on a staff. --MarkBuckles 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this whole plan, but the greek modes need to have a section as well. They are a completely different conception of pitch relationships than the church modes and there is much to say. Perhaps the "Ancient Greek Modes" article could just be a cross-reference to an article called "Ancient Greek Tonoi," which is the actual word used in Greek theory manuscripts? This would underline just how different the Greek concept of tonoi (which is often mis-translated as mode) is from the Medieval concept of mode. --p4limpsest 10:41, 2 June 2006 (ET)

Sorry guys, but when I was begginer I read these articles and didn't understand nothing. You need to make some system. For newbies it's really confussing. It's hard to understand what's really Greek , Church and Modern modes.

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. The articles are a mess, highly confusing and probably quite impenetrable (like the comment above here) to the technically untrained. I like the entry on plagal modes, whcih starts, Plagal mode refers to the notes of a plagal mode. I would be happy to help out. Eusebeus 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best to start a revised version under a different name stating the three different models, starting off with minimal text. I don't think it's wise to try and say everything and end up explaining nothing. Kakugo 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

whether you rework or keep as-is, the whole family of modal articles need a lot more sources.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article, but let's begin with the fact the mode is a term used universally in music; one cannot say that it "is usually used in the sense of scale applied only to the specific diatonic scales found below," or even that it applies only to pitch (what of the medieval rhythmic modes, or mode as a species of melodic change in early music?) Absolutely not; most of this article pertains only to the Diatonic or Church modes, and is thus misleading (many of the above comments pertain to the problems therein). Music mode should be a more general article; please see the article in New Grove (http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43718?print=true), which discusses mode in its historical sense, in polyphony, in Middle Eastern and Asian music, and in its contemporary sense.Drabauer (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Short Symbols

It would be good to have a table of the short symbols of the modes (e.g cmaj7 = /\) though I cannot find the respective symbols. There is also no mention of mode transposition. Also no mention that Hypomixolydian (represented as a seperate mode) is Dorian. Kakugo 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Church modes

I am suggesting that Church modes be merged into this article. The topic has better coverage here already. - Rainwarrior 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Hyacinth 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• goodness gracious. We should do the opposite and break this mess into articles which can be clarified and made more terse. The topic on church modes here is incomplete and inaccurate in some respects.Mwasheim (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We Three Kings of Orient Are

Is this song modal? If so, which mode?--Sonjaaa 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat. The melody of the verse is in the aeolian mode, which has the same notes as the "natural minor". However, when given its usual harmonization the verse modulates from (if it were in the key of E) E minor to G major and back again (the chorus begins in G major and moves back to E), thus the flattened 6th and 7th scale degrees aren't really part of the E natural minor so much as they are part of the G major harmony to which the piece has moved.

So... overall I would say, no. The piece as usually played falls well within normal tonal practice for the minor mode (modulation to the relative major key). The melody of the verse itself, detached from harmony, however, does fit the aeolian mode (and the lowered 6th and 7th really are noticeable). Though, the aeolian mode wasn't commonly used in western music until relatively late; tonality was not far off when it was finally theorized by Glareanus. - Rainwarrior 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

lydian pic under church modes is wrong

There is a pic under the "church modes" heading showing lydian as having a perfect 4th from root to 4th. This is wrong. Lydian has an augmented 4th. I like the pic otherwise, but if anyone can duplicate it without the mistake, that'd be great. Jordan 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of church modes, it's not exactly "wrong". The B was very, very frequently flattened where Gregorian chant is written in the third mode (for composers of the time, the augmented fourth sound wasn't something to be emphasized; however, for modern composers using the Lydian, flattening the fourth eliminates the point). However, the image doesn't indicate that the flat was optional. It appears in some places, but not others (mostly places where the F to B relationship is not directly outlined). So... some change in the image is probably warranted. - Rainwarrior 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a further note: in the church modes, there was no Ionian mode. Only Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian. So, a Lydian with a b-flat doesn't actually duplicate an existing mode as it does when you have the more extended modal systems. The later development of a "major" scale comes directly out of this frequently enjoyed alteration of the Lydian mode. - Rainwarrior 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Various comments

I only recently stumbled upon this article, having looked at the Locrian mode page and saw links here on the talk page. After reading the page and this talk page a few times I have a few comments.

First, on the proposal to standardize and consolidate the pages on modes, I agree! It seems sensible to have all the individual pages on modes redirected here, where modes can be explained in general. If this page gets too long as a result, we could split it by history -- let this page be about modern modes, with links to the historical stuff on their own pages.

Second, on the idea of the modes being ordered from "very major" to "very minor", or "light to dark", I am reminded of the way Mathieu explains modes in his book "Harmonic Experience". He describes intervals as "overtonal" and "reciprocal" (eg, fifths, 3:2, are overtonal and fourths, 4:3, reciprocal; dominant/subdominant). From this perspective the modes shift from "fully overtonal" to "fully reciprocal", Lydian to Phrygian. He adds the possible metaphor of sun to moon to the common metaphor of "light to dark".

Third, the Locrian mode. Mathieu says "the Locrian mode is suspect in that it exists as a latter-day theoretical construct generated to complete the compass of the church modes." And goes on to suggest that without a perfect fifth a mode will "tilt irrevocably toward the subdominant" -- in other words, even over a strong drone, "C Locrian is hard as F Phrygian", though he admits there's no proof other than your ears. If the drone is so strong that it remains the tonal center even in Locrian, you could put anything above it, "even a chainsaw", as he puts it.

Also, if Locrian is included as a regular mode, one step more reciprocal than Phrygian, shouldn't its overtonal partner, "Supra-Lydian" or "Lydian Dominant" (Lydian with a sharped fifth) be included as well? Perhaps both are best left as unusual modes beyond the basic set.

I'm also curious about the comment of Locrian being "a latter-day theoretical construct generated to complete the compass of the church modes." When was Locrian added to the list of modes?

Finally, this page is confusing over how the church modes evolved into the modern modes. Perhaps the page would be better if it began with the modern modes and then had a history section later. Gotta run, naptime! Pfly 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Locrian was added by Heinrich Glarean in his treatise, the Dodecachordon. This was mid-16th century, I think, but you can look it up. It wasn't a church mode because it wasn't used in any music; it was just a theoretical extension of the existing modes to all steps of the scale. - Rainwarrior 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Way too complicated

This needs to be easier to understand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.210.131 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. MarkBuckles (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that for a non-musician this is way to confusing, and I agree. I really can't make changes, 'cause I don't know what modes are. Maybe it would be best to cut out some of the jargon so that laymen who just want to know what a mode is can understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.27 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the musical scale article does a much better job at explaining what is a musical mode. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even more interesting is the article on Diatonic/Chromatic mentioned immediately below. It is much clearer. What to do, what to do.Mwasheim (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic may be confusing because of the mixed usage of INTERVALS with DISTANCES. I believe the articles on scales and modes should indicate the INTERVALS that each scale/mode is built with, and NOT (just) the semitones/tones used, because that would clarify the naming of the notes in scales/modes. An example: building an F major scale considering only ST/T brings about a possible (erroneous) F-G-A-A#-C-D-E-F, whereas using INTERVALS (major 2nd - 2M - minor 2nd - 2M-2M-2M-2m) the construction of the scale NEVER would be incorrect (F-G-A-Bb-C-D-E-F). Something many musicians (for example in music magazines) don't point out because of simplicity, but it brings about much confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Be (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek modes vs. church modes

1. Church modes derive from Greek modes, but naming is not quite the same.
2. Greek modes were not played upwards but downwards.
3. Compare Church and Greek:

Greek modes:

• lydian c h a g f e d c
• phryg. d c h a g f e d
• dorian e d c h a g f e
• hypolyd. f e d c h a g f
• ionian g f e d c h a g
• aeol. a g f e d c h a
• mixolydian h a g f e d c h (that's why Plato was not enthusiastic about it)

Ziga 09:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Melodic minor modes

I'm interested in the section on the modes of the melodic minor scale, but am having trouble understanding it.

First it doesn't say whether we're talking about the ascending or descending melodic minor. The link to Minor scale doesn't resolve it, and is likely to further confuse people. Can we just state what the scale is here? Something like, "..(ascending) melodic minor (for example, in A, the scale A B C D E F# G#).." ?

Second, ok I assumed we are talking about the ascending melodic minor, in part because on the Minor scale page the descending melodic minor is shown in notation as a down-stepping scale, which makes the mode numbering seem backwards or something. Plus, isn't the descending melodic minor the same as the aeolian mode? Right, so we're talking about the ascending melodic minor. But then when I tried to look at the modes this scale would make I quickly found myself confused by the names and chords given on this page. For example:

The first mode makes sense. Of course it's called "Melodic Minor", and I can see how if you are starting on A you coud make a C-maj7 chord on the mode's 3rd degree (the page doesn't say you are starting on A, I'm just assuming). The second mode, "Dorian b2" also makes sense, but I can't see how to make a Dsusb9 chord. If we're still starting on A, I can see making a chord on the 3rd degree with the notes D F# A C E. Perhaps the C is the "sus", but where is the b9?

Then it gets worse. The third mode's name, "Lydian augmented" makes sense, but you sure can't make an Ebmaj#5 if your mode starts on A. Same problems with the "Lydian dominant" mode -- the name makes sense but the chord doesn't.

Can someone explain these problems I'm having? It seems the section just needs more specific info. Which melodic minor scale? For each mode's example chords, what note are we starting on in order to make these chords? Thanks. Pfly 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AIUI, the modes of the melodic minor (you're right, it's the ascending, because that's the one that isn't a mode of the major; that's part of why they're sometimes called "jazz minor modes" in this context) are usually named after the most similar mode of the major scale, but that similarity doesn't necessarily extend to harmonizing in the same way. Yes, this needs to be explained better. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the first chord in the melodic minor scale major? It might contain all the intervals of a major scale (except the third obviously) but that doesnt make it major. I'm changing it, any objects just change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.42.172 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of mistakes in musical mode listening examples

The listening example (ogg audio files) are all jumbled up and wrong - I think the only right one is Phrygian. Can someone fix this error (I'm too skilled with Wiki, and don't know how to reupload the audio after renaming them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zexil (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I'm glad I'm not the first to notice this. But it's 4am, so I'll either fix it later or let someone else beat me to it. -71.191.91.162 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Harmonic minor modes

Could someone make another chart to put under the Other Modes section. This time, one with the modes of the Harmonic minor scale? i.e

1. Harmonic minor
2. Locrian natural 6th
3. Major #5
4. Dorian #4
5. Phrygian major 3rd
6. Lydian #2
7. Super locrian diminished

At the moment there's a chart for the Melodic minor modes and chords, it would be nice to have one for the Harmonic minor too. ArdClose (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too West-centric?

It seems to me the bulk of the discussion on Musical modes is centered around Western music. Maybe that should be made more explicit at the beginning of the article? Thanks, Vpdath (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

it is intersting how modes and scale are related to beats

i am not an expert but maybe it is worth looking it up http://www-math.mit.edu/daimp/Beats.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonfeluch (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound clips

Someone who knows something, please fix the sound clips. They're wrong. The ionian, for example, is clearly not ionian. Snakefarmer (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Music Modes and Greek Tribes

I quote from Ralph Denyer, 'The Guitar Handbook', 1982, Pan Books. "The ancient Greeks are credited with having the earliest form of scales. These were named after their most important tribes: the Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian".( p.110)

All music modes descend from Greek Tribes, including Phrygian and Lydian which you refer as non-Greek. I suggest that this is corrected in the article. As far as the wikipedia articles on Phrygia and Lydia, I will make the relevant historical suggestions there because they are misleading. Note that the Phrygian article fails to mention that Phrygians also descended from Macedonia, a very well-known ancient Greek region. Kassos (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the political wrangling over whether Macedonia is Greek or not out of this article, please. — Gwalla | Talk 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Samson 1977

twice there is a reference called "Samson 1977", but this is not defined in the references section. is it this book?

Samson, Jim (1977). Music in transition: a study of tonal expansion and atonality, 1900-1920. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-02193-9. OCLC 3240273.

  — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

'Modern' section not very clear

This says "A mode is a type of scale that does not include the black keys on a piano(flats and sharps)" correct me if i am wrong but this is only the case when C major (Ionian) is the parent scale and most modes will have sharps and flats. If for example we look at G as the parent scale all the associated modes - G ionian A dorian B phrygian C Lydian D Mixolydian etc will all contain an F sharp. This is extremely misleading as there are more modes than the modes of the C Major Diatonic scale someone else will be able to fix this better than i can but this is extremely misleading and will limit the progress of music students all over the world a mode can have sharps in my opinion and there are more modes with sharps and flats than there are without them. Either myself or the person who wrote that section has missed the idea of modes completely. People really on wikipedia for factul information so unless i am completely wrong this is misleading thousands of musicians. Modes are not only the modes of the cmajor/a minor scale (relative minor) and the idea of modes can be applied to other key signatures like G as i have previously stated. Thats all i wanted to say. 58.170.165.220 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This section starts by stating that when taking a different note as tonal centre of a diatonic scale you change to a different mode. Further on in the section (the part about 'Major Modes') it is stated that the Ionian mode is identical to a natural major scale, by which, presumably, a major diatonic scale is meant. The same is stated in the part on 'Minor Modes' about the Aeolian mode and minor, natural scales. For somebody who is not very familiar with the distinctions between the terms used this part thus seems to contradict itself.

The limited amount of musical theory I'm familiar with tells me that a Ionian mode is indeed identical to a diatonic major scale and that the Aeolian mode is identical to a diatonic minor scale, no matter what the tonal centre of the mode/scale is. Therefor, the first part of the section seems in need of some clarification because it's not understandable to me at all. Maybe it is meant that when moving up on the diatonic major scale, every consecutive note of that specific scale and the notes following the chosen note on that specific scale, will together yield the consecutive intervals of a certain mode with the chosen note of that specific scale being the root or tonal centre of the mode. Whereas, how it is stated now, the sentence could be interpreted as meaning: 'when changing the root of the diatonic scale, the you will get a different MODE', which seems very wrong.

My point will probably escape everyone who is very familiar with musical theory and those people will argue that if you know more about musical theory the entire section is clear as it is. But please don't forget that these pages are meant for people who are relatively unfamiliar with musical theory. Musical theory is not something specialist like rocket science. Anybody that has ever bought a guitar just to play the riff to 'Nothing Else Matters' will inevitably come into contact with musical theory after a period of trying to play guitar. Please make sure this page is understandable to all beginning instrumentalists so they will become skilled musicians.

ps. Rictus made it clear a couple of comments above this one (n.15 it hink). The way he explains it, it is rather clear, but it is not stated like that in the article itself and even his explanation could be confusing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.128 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Locrian mode vs Mixolydian mode

Article Locrian mode reads: "However, what is now called the Locrian mode was what the Greeks called the Mixolydian mode."

Are they the same in all respects? Usage differs? Role in music theory differs?

Should the Wiki article be merged with Mixolydian mode?

Piano non troppo (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Locrian mode is also tagged as citing no sources. "What is now called" Locrian mode is usually a scale, and in this sense is not entirely commensurable with modes in either the antique or the medieval senses. So, first, the issue of nomenclature in the "Locrian mode" article needs to be documented; second, the explanation for what a mode was, is, and might be/have been needs to be clarified. If the results of all this show that there is no substantive difference between Mixolydian and Locrian in antique, medieval, and modern usage then, yes, the articles should be merged. It is also possible that pigs might fly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pigs are still on the ground, awaiting clearance for takeoff from air traffic control. In the meantime, I have extensively revised the Ancient Greek section. I think this should help to clarify the relation between Locrian and Mixolydian, but at the same time demonstrate why there is no one-to-one relationship between the Greek theoretical terminology on the one hand, and the Medieval/Renaissance/Modern terminologies on the other.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why So Difficult?

Why are the Wikipedia pages on musical theory almost impossible to understand? I'm an amateur musician (just like the other 99% of musicians in the world) and I've been using these pages to aid me in my musical studies. Studying them has proven worthwhile for me, but it has also given me a lot of frustration, because they are so hard to understand without a large amount of prior knowledge on the subject. Some of the above comments seem like good examples of musicians struggling with the same difficulties as me. I think the pages on musical theory need a big overhaul because they all seem to be written from an expert perspective. That might not be surprising because the people who wrote the pages probably are experts on the subject!

My major point is that semantically the pages might be in order, so they might be a handy reference for expert musicians, but only very little effort has been put in to assure that people looking to broaden or deepen their musical knowledge can understand the information presented to them. Please help us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.248.146 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags

There are tags everywhere. This is my first contribution to a Wikipedia talk page, but I'm an avid reader. I can understand that the tags after the sentences are intended to both warn the reader and to recruit knowledgeable readers to find a source, but the banner at the top stating that the article is unsourced is quite good enough. I'm only concerned because all of the 'citation needed' tags located at the end of sentences severely lessen the readability of the piece. Unless a sentence is particularly controversial I think that the banner at the top is enough to warn readers that the content of the page must be taken with a grain of salt except where otherwise noted. Just my two cents. I'm not an editor nor am I very knowledgeable about the oft-cited list of Wikipedia policies. 98.225.64.214 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. But rather than removing those tags, it would be preferable to try to find references to support and validate them. The tags are on sentences which are not obvious, indeed might even be subjective opinion, and to which an enquirer might want supporting evidence. Ideally, of course, the original contributing editor should have provided evidence for their assertion. But in the absence of that we are left with the present awkward situation of information which seems (to enthusiastic amateurs) reasonable and valuable enough to keep yet uncertain enough to raise doubt. So the best course of action is, I think, for any of us who might have that supporting evidence to provide it. Thus we can move the sentence forwards (towards supporting evidence) rather than backwards (tag removal might cause some readers to believe what they read...). If you have any books, sources, etc. for any of those tags, but aren't sure how to add them, drop a note here, and we'll try to help. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, too, and there's a way to fix this by using section tags that say /this whole section needs sources/ because in most cases, one could find a source for the whole paragraph. However, in looking at this article this morning I am severely disappointed that information that used to be in it is no longer there - and it was the part of the article I found to be must useful. I don't know what's going on with this, editing-wise, but it looks like many different kinds of understanding of modes have worked their way into this article. It used to have a relatively simple statement, including the intervals, and then went on to be more complicated. It badly needs editing.Levalley (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, there was information like this in the article, previously: This pattern of intervals: T-S-T-T-S-T-T is the characteristic of the Aeolian mode, and forms the modern natural A Minor scale (relative minor of C major). That was very helpful. Most of the second half of the current article is incomprehensible, even to someone who knows music theory fairly well and that's because it decides to go into Classical Greek notions about music that, while they can be related to modes, are not necessarily about modes themselves (such as tonoi). Tones and modes are different, even to the Greeks, although the Greeks worked out a way of talking about tone and voicing by reference to modes. This section belongs in its own article about Greek musical theory, in my opinion. This article needs a very brief (perhaps three sentence) summary of it (maybe) but then a redirect to a further page on Greek uses of the modes. The modes have evolved a great deal since Greek times (and there are controversies among Classicists and ethnomusicologists about how to summarize what is known about their music theory) so that doesn't need to complicate what used to be a useful article.Levalley (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are various types of modes. In what we might call western evolution, we can quickly see ancient Greek, various church/Gregorian developments and jazz. (And I've probably missed some.) Then there are those from Eastern traditions. My vote would be for this 'Musical mode' article to aim at an overview across the various families of modes; it should avoid the temptation to go too deep into any of them, but should aim to include a simple "contrast and compare" overview. The detailed stuff about any one type should (as in Levalley's example of Greek) be in an article dedicated to that topic.

There had been various discussion a few years ago about merging some articles. Indeed, as a result of one such short discussion Hyacinth performed a merger of 'church modes' into here. I've seen Hyacinth's work on other pages and overall I am impressed. But in this one instance I think, with the retrospective benefit of both hindsight and being relatively new, that was perhaps not the best move. Hence my suggestion above to let each type of mode (e.g. Greek, Gregorian/chant, Jazz/modern, etc.) have its own, focussed article, and this 'musical mode' one be a contrastive overview.

How does that lot sound? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Properties of musical modes should probably be merged back in somehow (with most of the didactic sections excised) too. — Gwalla | Talk 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad it sounds OK. You mention "Properties of musical modes should probably be merged back in". But into which article? Its opening 'Mode characteristics' section has lots of detail about harmony and chords. So that wouldn't apply to Greek modes (would it?) or Gregorian (would it?). Nor to the non-Western types (maqam etc.). So those aspects wouldn't be suitable for the proposed overview style of 'musical mode', but might be the basis for a 'jazz/modern' article. Might that be the way to go? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right. It's entirely about the modern modes, so any salvageable info should go there (there's not actually much to merge once you drop all the stuff on mnemonics). It should redirect, though, to the overview Musical mode article, because the title doesn't really imply the modern modes. — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify something: you mention "the title doesn't really imply the modern modes". At this point I'm not too bothered about exact titles of articles at first, but rather on what topics to cover and how to assign them to a set of articles. I think we should have something like:

• General overview article (provisionally this Musical mode one) as a sort of parent to other articles...
  • Article about Greek modes, initially resembling the 'Greek' section of this one
  • Article about Gregorian/church modes, such as existing (and growing) Gregorian mode, and adopting much of the material from this one
  • Article about modern/jazz modes, initially inheriting much of Properties of musical modes.

I realise that, at first sight, seems a West-Centric view, with no explicit mention of various Maqam (etc.) chant forms. But I would envisage they would sit alongside the Greek, Gregorian/church and modern/jazz, and that the overview article would be broad enough to relate across those too. So overall, thinking about taking the existing material from across the various articles, and redistributing it (with edits and augmentation) across a family of articles related in something like the above manner (and not yet worrying too much about titles, or re-directs, etc.). Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent plan. I wouldn't worry too much about the "Western bias", since the concept of mode is a Western one to start with. The New Grove article by Powers et al. goes into this at some length when discussing various world pitch systems, pointing out that many Western historical attempts (starting in the 18th century) to describe South Asian, Indonesian, Japanese, and other systems got into difficulties precisely because they attempted to reconcile these systems with the Western modal conception. In addition, there are already Wikipedia articles on several of these "analogues" (the most egregious lacuna has to do with Japanese music), and they are already linked from the present Musical mode article. The only decision that needs taking is whether to add a short description for each of these, in order to balance them with the other categories, or if their uneasy description as "modes" should be emphasized by keeping things as they are (that is, in a section acknowledging these systems as in some ways analogous to modes, rather than as modes properly so-called).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors contradicting each other

The section on chords had the following:

In jazz, the modes correspond to and are played over particular chords. (This is not entirely true. For this usage, scale on a chord, the correct term is "chord scale", not mode. Ex: The dorian chord scale is commonly played over the II-7 chord in a major key. Being in the dorian mode signifies that that particular chord is the tonic chord.)

I've looked through the history. The contradiction was added by User:Ensibemol in July last year.[1] I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but it's not encyclopaedic to have an article that makes a claim and then contradicts it. I've removed the arguing from the article. Discussion belongs here. Rigaudon (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lame

Typical example of why Wikipedia is run by elitist losers. Nothing like totally throwing accessibility out the window. Not everyone is obsessed with this stuff.

A sign of intelligence is when one can speak so anyone can understand. Wouldn't expect to find that at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.205.3 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 June 2009

Is useless aggression and vague criticism also a sign of intelligence? Hyacinth (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First section: modes and scales

Now the section "Modern modes" is looking better, the first section "modes and scales" either needs to be rewritten/edited or to be cut, in my opinion. As is, it's a bit confusing and superfluous. GoPlayerJuggler (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work and the new table. I hope you didn't mind that I adjusted your table somewhat.

It might be worth pausing and re-visiting the whole article. There is a discussion above about not trying to cram everything about every mode in every culture into this article, but instead considering having separate articles, with this particular "Musical mode" article acting as some sort of brief overview across them all. For instance there is already a Church modes article; might we envisage the our "Modern modes" section here likewise becoming a separate article? Might it be time to try to do something along those lines? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the discussion above. The proposed reorganisation sounds excellent. I personally won't be able to do it in the near future however, probably.Some intensive editing is needed though, for sure.

As an aside, it would be nice to have something about trad folk music from various countries and their use of modes. For example frequent usage of Dorian, Mixo, aeolian as well as Ionian in irish trad music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoPlayerJuggler (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful that we do not mislable something here. Just because a mode seems to appear somewhere, if the theoretical structure that comes with it is not there, then we should be careful how we term if. For instance, it two languages share the same word, it would not be logical to assume that the etemology of the word was exactly the same in both languages just because of the spelling. Jmclark56 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

References

What we really need are inline citations that connect specific lines of text with specific references. The "References" section was a long list that was no different from the "Further Reading" section, so I combined references from the "References" section with the "Further Reading" section. Now we have an overly long "Further Reading" section. Some of these references can be removed from the "Further Reading" section once they are used as inline citations. For example, those referencing The Journal of Musicology, New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Perspectives of New Music, etc.
--Trelawnie (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice cleanup (what a mess those entries were!). However, I don't think it is appropriate (considering the guidelines in the Wikipedia Manual of Style) to list references under "Further reading" that are actually cited in the text. The usual heading for such a list is "Sources", "References", or "Bibliography". I notice that you added a "reflist" template as well, even though this article does not use footnote-format references, so I have deleted it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• And I've added the tagged in-line versions back! The tags as they are serve to cross reference, jumping back and forth with a link which can be easily found and used. Your edit back to plain text not only obliterated hours of work, but made it necessary to scroll back and forth or use search. Still, I agree works needs to be done. However, in view of the massive re-write which all the above commentary indicates is overdue, I can't see a way to make progress with editing if we REMOVE structure.Mwasheim (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are now two parallel systems of referencing, parenthetical and endnote. I know of no other article on Wikipedia that does this, and the guidelines on referencing certainly do not endorse this. It means the article ends up with two reference lists, one in the order of first citation, the other alphabetical. This is not "structure", but rather superficial clutter. The fourth sentence of Wikipedia:Citing_sources reads "Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it." The section How to present citations says:] "Citations are usually presented within articles in one of five ways", and then enumerates those ways, which include footnote and parenthetical reference. If you have a good reason why his particular article ought to use footnotes instead of parenthetical references, or if you have better information than I about double-referencing on Wikipedia, then by all means let us discuss this. If, on the other hand, your position is that all Wikipedia article ought to do this, the correct forum is on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The structure I was referring to is html. Links. As one compares the references one can click to and from. The parenthetical affords nothing like. I'm willing to remove the parenthetical, though I find both are useful. One of the key reasons I did the expansion was testing all the 'citation required' marks of others. I had to scroll back an forth, and consult texts for hours just to determine that MOST of the citation required marks where in fact false. It was simply difficult to follow the trail of citation in the original. Since this article merits a complete rewrite I'm not certain that the 'original' form of the citations is of any import. Mwasheim (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. One difficulty with Wikipedia articles is that html is not fully implemented. There is no good way within one article to link to specific points elsewhere in it. What you are trying to do (and, if you can figure out some way to do it, I will be the first to applaud) is to link the inline references to an alphabetical bibliography (or Reference list, or whatever you wish to call it). Such an alphabetical list is essential whenever the number of sources becomes large, amongst other reasons so that the (more expert) readers are able to discover what items may have been overlooked. While the parenthetical references do not link to such a list, neither do the footnotes, which are an awkward and distracting means of accessing the information—compared with opening two windows on your computer, one for the text, the other for the alpha list. You will have gathered that I do not find the footnote links useful at all, but rather a hindrance. I wonder whether anything like this double system (as far as I am aware, unique on Wikipedia, though I have seen other, even more awkward attempts to address these differences of opinion) has been discussed over on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main, I was referring to merely jumping from the point of reference to the expanded title and back. The current implementation still leaves a lot to be desired. Systems like LaTex have long ago solved this problem. I'd work on it (software), if I wasn't more interested and motivated by the content. In any case, your correct in that it is often as much help as hindrance. Still plain text required me to 'know' the referred to entry (title or origin) to make any sense of itMwasheim (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC). I'll see if a Javascript based browser extension could be mocked up. But first, I'll see if someone hasn't already done it as a prototype.

Turned on the 'gadget' pop-ups. Displays the reference (as linked content is shown with the introductory paragraph) as a whole. For 'my' purposes, that is seeing the reference on demand, as it where, this is sufficient. But it does not address the alphabetical table concern which I concede is annoying. I'm probably the last to have turned on this thing. Highly recommend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Organization

This is a music theory article. Music theory is best understood in the context in which the music theory was first devised and used. Thus, I would like to see this article organized like the History of Music article, which is somewhat chronological. I think this would resolve much of the confusion in this article.
--Trelawnie (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you. I suspect that, were we to examine the edit history of this article, we would discover that it started as an article on the modern concept of modes as scales, and then had things tacked on at the end, over and over. Please feel free to start work on re-ordering the sections. I will try to help out as I can.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the large "Modern" section to the appropriate chronological position. Does this seem to help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. I see your chronological move of the Modern section as a positive step to improving the organization of this article.

--Trelawnie (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations for verification

Where and why does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several dozen unreferenced claims marked over the course of the article, along with some similar markings for weasel wording and vague statements.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need both? Hyacinth (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean—markings for both unreferenced claims and weasel words, or both a banner at the top and specific markings in the text? Assuming the latter, I presume that the top banner functions as a general call for additions, supplemented by more specific markings in the text. If the number of in-text markings were not so large, I might say that the banner at the top is excess to requirements but, as things stand, I think it is a fair warning that there are extensive problems.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that someone like you Jerome, who are after all qualified, remove the offending material. Much of confusion and need for further references could be dealt with by simply removing the contentious content altogether. I've been trying to take a stab at this myself but have the feeling the article should be broken into discrete sections instead of treating the entire history. Mwasheim (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I have been taking the cautious route, whereas the editorial guidelines urge us to be bold. I shall take your comment to heart. I am a little unclear about what you mean by "breaking the article into discrete sections instead of treating the entire history", though. Could you elaborate on this, please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that short illustrative examples of the modes ( at best with reference to instruments, intervals in string lengths, pipe division, among others) through the history should then link to further, detailed articles. In this case, we have a contentious, incomplete history without examples till far into the article. The structure, such as it is (I think it's still just a gloss) does more to obscure the subject and those sections (the incomplete section on the greeks, for instance) nevertheless contain information/discussion which could be better retained in their own article. For instance, the harmonists vs. theorists article?Mwasheim (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• To further illustrate, I myself, eager to elaborate on the history which seems to preclude Byzantium, by and large, added to the problem. The relation of the Othodox to the Roman church, and the relation of Hebrew, Syrian, Greek understanding of scales and modes (especially in relation to liturgy) is a 'field' and certainly doesn't properly belong to the heading 'western church'. An example from each of the periods (Tetrachord, with string pipe length interval origins, with example of text performed) with references to longer discursive articles would certainly allow us to provide a 'concrete' overview, and then provide further discussion concentrating on the minutae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Byzantine connection should be fairly easy to clear up, with something excerpted from Power 2001, II, 1, (ii): "The Byzantine model: oktōēchos", perhaps:

the octenary property of the modal system of Latin chant in the West was of non-Latin origin; the idea of an eightfold system of modes in a four-by-two matrix was adopted by Carolingian theorists to an existing body of traditional liturgical song with which it had not originally been associated. The eightfold system was of Eastern provenance, originating probably in Syria or even in Jerusalem (Jeffery, 1992, p. 108), and was transmitted from Byzantine sources to the Carolingian clergy during the 8th century.

(The citation is to Peter Jeffery: Re-envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, which probably should also be consulted.) The relationships with Hebrew cantillation and other, earlier melodic types has never been well-explained, and what understanding there was has recently come under renewed fire from some fairly big guns. Powers stays away from this topic in his treatment of Medieval chant theory, and the section on Middle Eastern music emphasizes the uneasiness of applying Western modal concepts to the various traditions of music in that region.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already helpful and although our understanding is incomplete, it's useful to at least add references to 'probable' relation. The Babylonian is missing, the Hellenized Persians and Arabs. Ach, weh. In any case, more tragic than the 'attribution' questions which will mostly remain speculative (we can't deny Pythagoras, but we can't confirm HIS writings) is the missing illustrative material for INSTRUMENTS. I know the voice is certainly our best (ok, not mine ;) but the demonstration of the arrangement of scale, ratio, proportion, and so on is a lot less muddy with examples of the ratios/intervals in string lengths or pipe lengths with holes (7 intervals, 6 holes, etc). I'm busy building instruments (and software) at the moment which slows down my editing, but as I finish concrete examples (primarily using Chalmers division of the tetrachord as reference), I'll compile photos and the illustrations of Elsie Hamilton http://www.nakedlight.co.uk/pdf/articles/a-002.pdf). I believe that the historical sections, insofar as the archeological record permits (which is much more than we have here!) should be illustrated. The sound file examples we have here are also largely 'useless' in that they don't mention how the sound is produced (how the ratios of the series is applied from/to?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this tetrachord business could get out of hand. There is a rather full discussion over on Tetrachord and on Octave species. From what you are saying about ratios, string and pipe lengths, instruments, etc., it sounds like getting into tuning theory more than modes as such. On the other hand, tetrachordal structure has a direct bearing on the concept of "affinals", a rather important subject in modal theory (especially of chant) that is not even mentioned here (yet). I'm beginning to think that most of the Ancient Greek material needs to be put in an article of its own. This is especially true because, as explained near the beginning of this article, the concept of "mode" did not come into existence (according to Powers 2001) until the codification of Carolingian chant theory in the late-8th or early 9th century, and was only applied retrospectively to Ancient Greek music some time later, and to other world music systems later still, beginning in the 18th century. This is not to say that this "mode" article should not say anything about these various pitch systems, since musicologists do use the term in this way, but rather that the Greek system is disproportionally represented at present.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is to avoid the entire process of permutation from tetra to penta, hepta and so on the the 'Great System' and still retain that which, at the end of that millennium, was harmony. Nevertheless, I'm not for muddling up the following millennium which diverges so much. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to reduce this article to be about mode in the post medieval world. That would require renaming the article and cutting it up substantially. Jazz has no business here. Neither does the baroque, but I'd be quite happy to work of more focused articles. To break up the article is, in my opinion, inevitable. I'm going to stop commenting like this and try to produce alternatives instead. Thanks again for your clarifications. Put them in the article, please!Mwasheim (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not thinking of tuning (in theory or practice) as being primary. It's always a question of what is 'consonant' given a set of relations. Whether in the tetrachord or the 'systeme'. It may become clear to the practicing musician when looking at instruments (the Duduk, Ney, for instance), that an entire folk music is 'in a mode' (or one set of permutations of 7 modes, more likely). I don't think this is an exaggeration. As far as concepts as 'affinals' there is so much material about the conjoining of tetra and pentachords, and following permutations in the greek literature alone (or the speculations about the greek literature), that I can't believe there is no bearing, greek chant, gregorian? In any case, some simple examples (Monochord?) will suffice. I think the Schlesinger Aoulus (sic?) examples of double reed pipes are more elegant (since you can lay 7 equally long pipes next to one another and see the relations of the intervals), but her theories are pretty speculative.Mwasheim (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing or unclear to readers

Which parts of this article are confusing and unclear, how are they unclear, and how should they be corrected? Hyacinth (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some more input on this, as well. Trelawnie has made some suggestions, particularly about making the article chronological (and I have tried to address this), but I'm sure there are other aspects that some readers may find puzzling.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If no specific part of the article is confusing and the article structure simply needed reordering then I don't think it is unclear. Hyacinth (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Hyacinth. This is why I would like to see more opinions. Although the article does not appear particularly unclear or confusing to me (nor did it appear so before the recent move of the "Modern" section), I know this subject rather well, and so I may be unwittingly filling in all sorts of logical gaps where others may be having difficulties.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually like this article and think it is fine. I don't like the individual articles for the modes and I think they could use a little more attention, especially when it comes to the difference between how the particular mode was used in the Church as opposed to the Modern usage. Then again, it bothers me slightly when people define the modes in terms of the major scale... Jmclark56 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this article so intensely that I'm reading all the literature I can find (without breaking the bank) to be able to improve it. Alone the fact that 500 years of greek history (the very origin of modes) is skipped to arrive at a 'footnote' about Ptolemy makes me 'mad'. The discussion moving from Ancient to Medieval skips any of a number of historical and geographical relations to launch into a discussion of compounded errors of omission and commision. By the time we get to modes in Jazz you just throw up your hands ... or start buying books! Not what I hope for from this wiki. But then, we're trying to address the issues, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's confusing. One reason it's confusing is that 90% of readers will want to be able to understand quickly what is meant phrases like "this music is in the Dorian mode". It's not helpful to have to plough through sections on greek and medieval usage. This is why it would be better to move these sections to seperate articles/pages, with links to the articles from this page.

One example of a sentence I find misleading: "Mode are basically referred then, as alternative sequence of diatonic notes and most often the mode's "tonic" is left unspecified, as what is being pointed at is, as mentioned before, simply a particular nontraditional sequence of diatonic intervals."

Why "nontraditional"? A good deal of traditional folk music uses other modes. And sometimes people do want to specify the tonic. i.e. they may well say for example "this piece is in C Dorian" or "this section is in C Dorian". I think this sentence needs improving or removing.... GoPlayerJuggler (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This, among other sections, exemplifies what's wrong with the article. There are a profusion of traditions which practice some form of 'modal' melody making. Even the two major catholic churches diverge. And the math (arithmetic and geometric) foundations are hopelessly lost since no concete examples of instruments employing (string length, pipe length, etc) the ratios of the many possible modes are described in detail. As I said elsewhere, working on a detailed toc. Sentence by sentence and we'll never get this article finished. Discussion of modes in North Western Traditional (sic) european folk music belongs elsewhere altogether, imho. Mwasheim (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, could you please locate this sentence for me? I've just done an electronic search of the article for the words "nontraditional" and "non-traditional", as well as the phrase "modes are basically", and they do not show up. On the other hand, I remember rewriting the "modern modes" section just a week or so ago (if that is where the offending phrase was). Though I do not recall this exact phrase, the twisted grammar and syntax is similar to a lot of things I fixed. It sounded like something written by a well-meaning editor with less than native English skills.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in brief

This article needs cleanup to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts, this means:

• Neutral - Is presented from a neutral point of view
• Compilation - Is written in a particular encyclopedic summary style
• Verifiable - Cites from reliable sources so that information can be verified by others
• Established - Excludes original research that cannot be verified

--Trelawnie (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of these points are already covered by the banner placed at the head of the article. To take this point by point:

• Neutral - Can you identify particular sections that present a biased view?
• Compilation - Obviously, the different sections are in different styles. Are you referring (as I suspect you are) to the "Modern" section in particular? Or are there other sections, as well, that you feel are not in an encyclopedic style?
• Verifiable - This of course is a clear problem, as indicated by the many "fact" tags throughout.
• Established – Again, could you be more specific? It appears to me that the violations of this principle are mainly in the "Modern" section. Or am I missing something?

—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure; separate articles

On a few occasions, the topic of this article's structure, and in particular the amount of detail about the range of mode types, has been discussed.

Earlier today someone added "Jewish Prayer Modes" to the "See also" section; this re-opens that topic. From the perspective of the rest of this "Musical modes" article, consistency suggests that we should add a lengthy description of this topic into here also.

But perhaps it would be better to consider again pruning this article to a simple, relatively brief overview, carefully avoiding too much detail, and instead making significant use of {{main|Foo-bar modes}} tagging.

Propose: Prune this article to a general historical world-wide, time-wide sweep; have series of separate "Foo-bar modes" articles; this article's sections about each "Foo-bar modes" topic are brief and use (for instance) {{main|Foo-bar modes}} tagging. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Having just read Chalmers (frog press, out of print, see link in article) Divisions of the Tetrachord, at 200 pages, and seeing in the mode article nothing like completeness of Chalmers (among many others!), I'm inclined to agree. I'm working out a new table of contents and concise example sections which I'll post here, time permitting.Mwasheim (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. It's NOT a question of completeness. Concision, clarity ... Those will do just fine. Mwasheim (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

HELP

In the process of expanding the greek section such that the relation of tones in the tetrachord the combinations of tetrachords into modes of the gamut all the way to a play, a ceremony, Melos, it seems I need feedback. Should I continue so that the use of the word mode applied to the Greeks is more than a gloss of 'octave species'. In my opinion Aristoxenian left alone is a gross distortion, and yet too much more detail and I'll curse myself. I really do think mode is an appropriate term, and obviously there is continuity. I also think the church sections need expansion (one for byzantine, one west) and reorganization.Mwasheim (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are already articles on several of these topics. If the idea is to keep this article focussed on the core material, and only bring in the essential matter from subjects like the oktoechos system, tetrachords, octave species, etc., then these main articles should be left to do their job. I think this is already a problem with to ample a discussion here of the Greek tonoi, harmoniai, etc. The focus ought to be on what is directly pertinent to modal theory. I agree that Aristoxenian theory alone is insufficient, though the Aristoxenian tradition provides a large share of information on tonoi and octave species. Remember that Ptolomy is fundamentally a Pythagorean in terms of tuning theory, but comes so late in history (comparatively) that he cannot help but deal with the Aritoxenian tradition. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the niceties of distinctions between concepts such as harmonia, tonos, octave species, and transposition level is not of much relevance to the development of medieval modal theory. Keep in mind Harold Powers's warning from the beginning of his New Grove article that, "It is essential to distinguish between ‘mode’ as a concept in the history and theory of European music and ‘mode’ as a modern musicological concept", and that "as an indigenous term in Western music theory the term is applicable in three separate successive historical stages: to Gregorian chant, to Renaissance polyphony, and to tonal harmonic music of the 17th century to the 19th." On the other hand, the article on Ancient Greek music does not deal with music theory, and there is no separate article on this subject at the present time. I think one should be created, and this in turn should take some of the pressure off of this article on modes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Feline Hymnic's proposal, it does not seem to me that—apart from the section on Ancient Greek theory—this article is so long that it needs much pruning. What interests me most about reorganization is identifying or defining the essential "Foo-bar modes". Clearly, some things need to be said about (1) Ancient Greek theory, (2) Byzantine chant theory, (3) medieval chant theory, and (4) modern construal of "mode" (when composers from the late 18th century onward conciously reintroduced the modes in the context of major/minor tonality), along with compositional theory of the same. Finally (5) there must be something—perhaps no more than the present link list—pointing to the pitch systems in various world musics that are sometimes referred to my musicologists as "modes" (Maqamat, Ragas, etc.). As things stand, the glaring gap here is that we lack anything specifically on polyphonic modal theory (it occupies an entire section of its own in Powers's New Grove article. On the negative side, we must remember we are not dealing here with the early transmission of chant repertory (this belongs in the articles Plain chant and Gregorian chant). Modal theory came into being as a classification system to organize an already extant, large body of chant melodies—not as a guide for how to compose new ones. In the process, it also became a critical tool for revision of melodies that did not fit well into the newly devised system.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's also consonant with breaking up the article where it threatens to become bogged down in too many digressions. The main reason it's difficult for me to discern 'where to draw the line' is that, as a composer/arranger (amateur!) I deal with materials from different cultures (at the moment, primarily ottoman). Add to that an interest in the turn of the 19/20th century and and and ... it seems inevitable that the term mode has a much broader meaning than that of the roman catholic tradition. But the point about the 18th century, the fact that linking to maqam/raga and the lack of polyphonic modal material makes sense. The goal as I see it then is to reduce and clarify the greek part so that it doesn't muddle the naming further on) but doesn't obscure the origins either. I'm going to do a thorough review of the articles in the wiki and cross-reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If it helps our thinking, let's turn things around a little... Just suppose a set of reasonably good articles was already in existence, ready-made for us, covering the major 'mode' topics (Greek, Maqam, Raga, Gregorian, modal-jazz, etc.). Then what would this article (Musical mode) look like? My initial guess is that it would provide a general, non-detailed historical and geographical overview, and that its direct musical content might be quite limited, e.g. pointing out terminological changes (e.g. "Mode x means something different in Gregorian context than it does in Greek") Might such a thought-experiment assist this article's structure? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've begun with a complete survey of the system Musical_system_of_ancient_greece with a more complete overview. Avoiding duplication with articles like Music in ancient greece and tetrachord etc.Mwasheim (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

well, I for one, find solace in finding coherent articles (outside of the wikipedia) like: http://www.enotes.com/music-encyclopedia/mode and http://www.midicode.com/tunings/greek.shtml . Still, I won't make any claims about accuracy. What it boils down to from perusing the citations is that I need to buy the multi-volume strunk, and then decorate it with marginalia as when I was a student many years ago. The wikipedia is useless in this case. But then so is most of the scholarship. I'm depressed. Soooo. I'm going to practice Greek Orthodox Modes on my Oud. And then I'm going to refresh my Greek and read plato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)