Talk:Mode (music)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Delightful Discourse

I am a new comer to Wikipedia and was delighted and amazed by the article on modes. Looking a means of expressing this astonishment and awe, by the way it answered all of my questions, I stumbled in here and was even more taken with this ongoing interaction around a topic which though I have been aware of it for 40 years had hardly occupied 5 minutes of my time at any one time before and probably not an hour of my whole life. I wander in here and find people devoting hours and hours perhaps days or weeks of study and thought and emotional energy to the issue. I am thunderstruck and delighted by the world have glimpsed. Thank you all. donald96.50.98.131 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)dcs

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you (on behalf of all of the editors active on this page) for your words of appreciation. It is especially gratifying to hear that, for one reader at least, this article is no longer the impenetrable mess that earlier reports have described.

Since you are new to Wikipedia, may I suggest that, when posting comment on a Talk page, you add your contribution chronologically, at the bottom of the page, unless it is an addition to an ongoing, earlier topic, in which case it logically goes at the bottom of that section.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh. Speaking for myself, I'm just obsessive ;) In this particular case, over 2000 years and many cultures and languages inform what we are trying to accomplish. We need all the encouragement we can get! Thanks, very much.Mwasheim (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Harmoniai

Possibly with misplaced zeal, Mwasheim restored an outdated (1937) translation of Aristotle in place of the more recent and musically accurate translation by Barker that I had added just yesterday. Ellis's translation was first published in 1776 (the linked Guteberg text was scanned from the 1928 reprint of the 1912 edition). At the same time, this edit (probably unintentionally) removed the chapter and line references to the original Greek text. The Plato quotation in Jowett's translation also needs replacing, but I am currently hampered by not having a proper line reference (and have tagged the text accordingly). I suspect the reason I have been so far unable to locate this passage in Barker's excellent translation of passages from the Republic is that Jowett takes even greater liberties with Plato's text (or was even more ignorant of musical terminology) than was the case with Ellis a hundred and fifty years earlier. These out-of-date translations (with terms like "mixed Lydian" for "Mixolydian", for example) only serve to increase confusion in an already difficult area of discussion. Let us strive for clarity, and replace them (however convenient it may be to have an on-line link) with better texts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'm attempting to cover a lot of ground in too little time. The translations that are 'available' I've consulted. Looks like the library is my next destination. A problem. I'm in Berlin. I'm going to refrain from editing at all. Mwasheim (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Where do the 'line references to the original Greek text.' come from? What is the origin of the 'original'. Barker? Ernest? The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle ? Where does this come from? I cited a text that is well known. In the public domain. 'Verifiable'. This Barker is a bit of a mystery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The musician and his art, Volume 2, seems to be the reference. So. I should buy this particular volume to become acquainted with Plato? I don't think so. This is beginning to look like trench warfare. Mwasheim (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon. Aristotle. Not Plato. Although that's likely going to be a problem as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Barker. Hmmph. '... and we must see what efforts Ptolemy makes to sharpen it up'... if that isn't vanity, I don't know what is. A speculating oportunist. Thanks a lot. I'll stick with the public domain until I have the time to 'wade' through the muck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Of course, it pays to see what the reviews attest: http://www.kingmixers.com/Franklin%20PDF%20files%20copy/Barker%20Review.pdf Which only reveals that the only recourse is to refresh your Greek and make what you may. Otherwise, you become the victim of a confederacy of dunces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For a native English speaker (fluent German and French) I find it sad to HAVE to refer to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musik_der_griechischen_Antike etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an amusing soliloquy! It appears you have worked out that Barker is a highly respected scholar, and not some puffed-up amateur. I should probably have mentioned a couple of things earlier on. First, I not only have formal education in Greek theory, but have myself taught this subject at the graduate level on two occasions. That was some 15 years ago, to be sure, but I have tried to keep up-to-date on recent scholarship, though I would not describe myself as a leading expert, either. The second thing is that, although trained as a music theorist and musicologist and not as a classicist (I have only the most basic Latin, and no Greek worth mentioning), I have worked for the last four-and-a-half years in a University classics department, and so have some second-hand familiarity with the tools used in this field, as well as online access to many of them. The standard book/chapter/line/etc. citations in classical works are found in all critical editions of the original Latin and Greek texts (in a few cases there are competing standards), and are used in most if not all of the more recent serious translations and commentaries. A passage from The Republic in Barker (vol. 1, pp. 135–36), for example, reading

'For these reasons, then, Glaucon,' I said, 'isn't training in mousikē of overriding importance, because rhythm and harmonia penetrate most deeply into the recesses of the soul and take a powerful hold on it, bringing gracefulness and making a man graceful [401e] if he is correctly trained, but the opposite if he is not?

I not only can determine from the section heading that the portion of The Republic being translated is Stephanus-pages 401d–402a, but from the inserted bracketed numeral, I can even see where the break in sections is. I can then go to the Thesaurus Linguaie Grecae digital library, and see the original Greek text:

Ἆρ’ οὖν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ Γλαύκων, τούτων ἕνεκα κυριωτάτη ἐν μουσικῇ τροφή, ὅτι μάλιστα καταδύεται εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς τῆς ψυχῆς ὅ τε ῥυθμὸς καὶ ἁρμονία, καὶ ἐρρωμενέστατα ἅπτεται αὐτῆς φέροντα τὴν εὐσχημοσύνην, καὶ ποιεῖ εὐσχήμονα, (e.) ἐάν τις ὀρθῶς τραφῇ, εἰ δὲ μή, τοὐναντίον;

Even if I can't read Greek, I can at least check what the original of any doubtful words in the translation are (e.g., "rhythm and harmonia" translates ῥυθμὸς καὶ ἁρμονία). In the present article, what I would like to do is find better, more up-to-date translations of the Plato citations, but this is made difficult because the references are to an old and rather quaint translation, without these careful identifiers. If you cannot find the relevant numerations yourself, that is fine—someone else may be able to do this, maybe even myself, given time—but please do not remove requests for such references simply on the grounds that you are unable to supply them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't answer your question about where the numerations come from. In the case of The Republic, this is J. Burnet (ed.), Platonis opera, vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902): St II.327a-621d.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to be amusing! I've always preferred puffed up amateurs to this generations intellectual darlings (as much the German as the Anglo :) AS I CAN'T read greek, I'm unable to check the original! It seems you have a Burnet quote? Why not replace the Jowett? The numerations of Burnet surely can't accord with those of Jowett? The Jowett and Ellis translations are enjoyable, but I can see I'm not going to improve on this with my limited means. Mwasheim (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Burnet is an edition of the Greek text, not a translation. I think it might be asking too much of readers of the English Wikipedia to offer them quotations in that language! The problem with replacing the text is that neither the Jowett nor the Ellis translations give the standard page/section numbers. Given enough time, I could probably track them down by reading line-by-line through the translation and the Greek text in parallel (though this would be laborious for me, since I have no Greek to speak of). Having once located the passage in this way, then it would be a simple matter to find a more up-to-date translation in a better edition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thesaurus Linguaie Grecae, you mean http://www.tlg.uci.edu/demoinfo/demo.php ? Or Göttingen?Mwasheim (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean the former, except that I was accessing the full database on Stephanus at the University of California (which is subscription-access only), rather than this abridged, public-access one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the The Republic from Barker, above, In Jowett reads :

And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognise and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.

This is line 2271 of the e-text, with the introduction removed. The introduction in it's eloquence is worth reading all on it's own. For the first part, there is no substantial difference. I much prefer Jowett. Is there more to the Barker corresponding to the 'most shrewdly perceive omissions' etc?Mwasheim (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jowett is certainly more poetic, and the old-fashioned, 19th-century language ("on which they mightily fasten", "will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults", "now in the days of his youth", etc.) is for the most part not actually impenetrable for the modern reader, but there is a difficulty using the word "harmony" without a caution, and I rather imagine that Jowett assumed this involved chords and such (classicists in his day not being generally very expert in historical musicology, and particularly ancient Greek music); Barker rightly retains the Greek word harmoniai, and even footnotes it at several places with glosses explaining its probably meaning. The passage quoted in the article is populated with more than one instance of this sort of thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Since we are quoting Plato's polemics, which are not concerned with accuracy in describing such things as Harmony but much more so with persuasion through the consistent application of coherent principles (! err, maybe) and what we most prise is the beauty of Plato.... well, you can see where I'm going with this. As for the Greek originals, I would contest we have no choice but to refer to them. Any translation into English will be, in some sense, a failure. In a round-a-bout way, this is also why I protest so the gloss on ancient Greek modes. The 'characteristic intervals', to borrow a term from Chalmers excellent tetrachord book, as it relates to characteristic harmonies (major third, minor third) etc, just doesn't appear. Similar is the problem with a glancing blow at melos, which like ethos is simply ill defined here. Gathering up the strands in the wikipedia requires quite a lot of time. I keep skipping to the German since it is in some respects better (some worse). The German article corresponding to Music of Ancient Greece, for instance, is 'much' better, containing illustrations of the system .... In any case, I don't expect you to do all the heavy lifting where the pagination or other referencing questions are concerned. If it's necessary for other scholarship, I'll do my bit. I may be able to automate the wikifikation of the pure text versions .... Mwasheim (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any translation is—necessarily—in some sense a failure. Don't I know it! However, I think you would agree that some translations may fail more than others, and the failures of one may be in different places than those of another. Since we are dealing here with music theory, and more specifically with the theory of pitch relations, clearly accuracy of translation in this area must take precedence over anything else. In case I have not been clear on this point before, the need for proper reference to the Greek originals is not primarily for the benefit of the casual reader, but rather for the expert editor who may in the future come along with knowledge of a better English translation. But I don't think we are in any disagreement over this. I agree that both melos and ethos could be better defined here. I do wonder about the relevance of the Proclus material you have added, however, which has a lot to do with metrics, but not much with pitch, as far as I can see. Still, it would be important for a separate article on Greek theory.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe in this case that 'better' is impossible define. Plato is unconcerned with the tetrachords, but very much concerned with Melos. And in Jowett's translation, the power of the polemic what the Melos affects comes across. Perhaps it also does in other translations? The Proclus material is merely a means for expanding on the limp mention of Meletic which makes no sense without it. In trying to bridge the cultural gap(s) (seemingly less of a problem for Safiym-d-Din than for us today!) I've been trying to get to the point that Chalmers arrives at between page 47 (Historical classification section, referring often to Croker and Barbera) and page 52 "The historical studies are important not only for what they reveal about ancient musical thought but also because they are precedents for organizing groups of tetrachords into structurally related sets. The use of constant or contrasting pyknotic/apyknotic proportions can be musically significant. Modulation of genus (insert some greek here) from diatonic to chromatic or enharmonic and back was a significant stylistic (ed. Melos! Tonoi. Intersection. Compare and contrast with modal music of the church now....) feature of ancient music according to the theorists. Several illustrations of this technique are found among surviving fragments of Greek music (Winnington-Ingram 1936)." I practice the makams. At the moment I'm trying different tunings to use in playing them (on the Oud). I also play ET music (mostly Satie, Piano). In my writing practice, I'm trying to arrive at a point where I understand the 'possible/probable' intersections of modes as those in turn are related ratios of intervals in tetra or penta chords... The systematic use of same whether it be in 'harmonic' music in the 'standard' sense (common practice period(s)) will always have common roots, so to speak. Consonance, whether over time or in space has foundations, even when some listeners tolerances are higher than anothers, there will be common experience and it's that, over time and space that I'm interested in understanding. I think the modes article could better contribute to that than it does now. Mwasheim (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Err. Forgot the litmus test question. Does the Jowett translation fail the 'clearly accuracy of translation' test? The moving of Harmony to harmoniai, without the extant footnotes (and possibly with them) is not convincing. I, as a translator (poetry is in some sense more forgiving than philosophy, but less so in other senses) feel compelled to take risks that may yield inaccuracies but also poetry! Weak poems are the best test. One just can't be bothered. Strong ones cause us to betray (and do justice) to our author in that we attempt to what they have attained. (perhaps sung to the tune of battle hymn of the republic) ....

Jerome, I wanted to thank you for being considerate (in all senses)... I'm a bit of a hot head and of type faster than I think. Occupational hazard of the software programmer.

I try to be tolerant and remember that typed messages can easily give the wrong impression. I don't always succeed, and I hope I can always manage to apologize if I lose my rag.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a model of tolerance. You could in fact often be more aggressive. I'm too aggressive, but I readily turn against myself which is a corrective, of sorts. Some say I should have chosen theatre ... Mwasheim (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of some sources

Could someone confirm for me if this http://arts.jrank.org/pages/258/ancient-Greek-music.h is T. J. Mathiesen who also appears in the Mode text. This article defines Melos in a way that's familiar to me. Mwasheim (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The citation at the end is to "T. J. Mathiesen , Apollo's Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Lincoln, NE, 1999)", and this is indeed the same author who wrote several of the New Grove articles cited in the Wikipedia mode article. Whether or not the "Thomas Mathiesen" who signed that online article is the same person or someone with the identical name, I cannot say with certainty.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to know if the text that was being used, seemingly with rights intact, was an excerpt. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's a text I read in University and it seems legit. Sadly, it's a book that with much of my library resides on another continent. I looks like an excerpt to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleonides

On 24 November 2009, User:Mwasheim added several notes in hidden text, one of which asks questions about Oliver Strunk's translation of Cleonides. I can confirm that Stunk used Karl von Jan's edition of the Greek text of Cleonides' Eisagoge (Musici scriptores graeci, Leipzig, 1895: 179–207). From his annotations, it would appear that he also consulted the French translation by C. E. Ruelle (Paris, 1884), and he also mentions the Latin translation by Georgius Valla, first published in Venice in 1497. There is also a rather less specific question about similarities to Euclid, in response to which I quote from strunk's prefatory remarks (Source Readings 1:34): "… he adheres closely to Aristoxenos, even in his terminology and wording.… This is in itself enough to dispose of the attribution to Euclid, found in many of the sources, for the teachings of Aristoxenus and of Euclid, in his Division of the Canon, are diametrically opposed". I hope this is helpful. There are also some further remarks in the hidden text which I do not understand. It appears that Mwasheim has some question about the extent of Cleonides' treatise. It is indeed quite modest in length—just seven pages in Strunk's translation of the complete work, and 800 words in Greek, according to Jon Solomon, who has more recently made a new edition in "Cleonides: Eisagōgē harmonikē: Critical Edition, Translation, and Commentary" (diss., U. of North Carolina, 1980). As far as I am aware, this has not been published (though of course it can be obtained from UMI). He has also written the article on Cleonides for the New Grove, where more on the various attributions to other authors, dating, and other matters may be found. Solomon characterises Cleonides' Eisagoge as "the clearest introduction to the harmonic system synthesized by Aristoxenus".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Many thanks! The main initial reason for my confusion was a near contemporary date located next to an ancient name. I was also uncertain about the Strunk, in part since attribution with von Jan is obscured by naming (Carl, and even without von!). I'm working my way through primary sources (very very slowly) but am certain to have to buy the Grove or Strunk's eventually. Thanks again.Mwasheim (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Essay-like?

I notice that User:SpK has just tagged this article with the "essay-like" template. Since it is a fairly long article, I would like to know whether this is intended to apply to the entire article, or only to some sections and, if the latter, which sections those might be. For example, the lede paragraph does not strike me as being in the least "essay like", and in fact adheres quite closely to the source, Powers 2001, cited twice in it. If on the other hand it is meant to apply mainly to the overly long discussion of the Greek pitch system, then it would be well to consider Mwasheim's efforts currently underway to transfer the bulk of theis material to a new article, Musical system of ancient Greece. If, on the third hand, it is meant to refer to the discussion of the medieval modes, then let us discuss specifics. Over the past year or so I have been the editor most concerned with fixing some very wrong-headed ideas once dominant in this section, and I have been very careful to introduce only information documented in reliable sources, the most important of which is undoubtedly Powers 2001, and to keep the tone completely encyclopedic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, it's mostly the citation style that seems essay-like (granted, there may be some other citation-style cleanup template that I don't know about and should have used), as (Powers 2001, introduction): <ref name="Powers2001">* Powers, Harold S. (2001). "Mode". ''[[The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians]]'', edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan.</ref> seems redundant. The whole point of inline citations (per the MOS is to just have the little unobtrusive ^[1] instead of (Powers 2001, introduction) (for example). I'd be bold and just remove them, but I figure it'd be better to ask your opinion first. ~SpK 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see! It is definitely the wrong template, which addresses prose style. Yes, I had a long discussion with the editor who inserted those duplicate formats on some of the citations a month or so ago. Since you appear to agree with me, and because that editor has himself told me I should be bolder, I will remove the confusing and distracting duplicates.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong (again!). But I thought User:SpK is arguing for the text body to contain the nice, small, unobtrusive^[1] things and against the long "(Powers 2001, introduction)" body inserts. The majority of WP articles across a wide range of subjects seem to use the WP^[1] convention in the main text-body. (Granted, WP:MOS does technically permit (doesn't deny) the long, textually intrusive "(Powers 2001, introduction)" style in the text-body, but very few articles in WP seem to use it... find me another topic area where the long-style is used.) So hasn't the wrong removal been done? The long "(Powers 2001, introduction)" may be the house-style in some academic music-publishing journals. But it doesn't seem to be the de facto house-style in WP. Is there any overriding reason to go against the commonly used WP de facto house-style? My vote would be for the de facto WP^[1] house-style. (Or have I mis-understood something?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that you have read SpK correctly and I have not. However, the point here is that parenthetical referencing has been the established referencing format for this article for a long time. User:Mwasheim added footnote links to about 2/3 of these references, in an effort to generate links to the alphabetical list of References. This did not work, of course (as discussed further back on this page), and so I have removed them again. Personally, I find the little blue numbers and the need to jump back and forth between the text and the references extremely annoying. It is perfectly true that the great majority of Wikipedia articles do use footnotes, but many do not (see, for example Milton Babbitt, Béla Bartók, Arnold Schoenberg, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Serialism, Set theory (music), and Tonality, as well as the great majority of the articles subordinate to this one, e.g., Phrygian mode, Hypophrygian mode, Hypodorian mode, Hypolocrian mode, Lydian mode). According to Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles), "There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I read User:SpK as supporting precisely the inline ref style I employed in my original attempt to make the references 'usable'. It's a pity to have the text without being able to CHOSE (with a simple mouseover) to see the referrred to work in detail. Sigh. I will no longer edit here since it is impossible to do so without printing o9ut a list of the references.Mwasheim (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Modal Music Definition

Hey There, I came to this page because I wanted to understand what Modal Music is. After reading the page I didn't understand what Modal Music was. I should preface, I took a music theory course in college. However the explanations seem to describe the sort of thing modal music is without starting out with a Modal Music IS statement thats not ambiguous. While I may learn what a musical mode is, that still doesn't tell me what modal music is. I found another description that was much more concise and I think it would be a benefit to include something like this in the article.

Tonal, Atonal, and Modal Music

---

Medieval European music, like many Non-Western traditions, was modal. This means that a piece of music was not in a particular key based on a major or minor scale. Instead, it was in a particular mode. A mode may look very much like a scale, since it lists the notes that are "allowed" in the piece of music and defines the tonic of the music. But a mode is usually also a collection of melodies, melodic phrases, or patterns that are found in that mode and not others (since the various modes are more different from each other than the various scales). Modes also may imply or suggest specific moods or they may be meant to have particular effects on the character of the listener.

http://cnx.org/content/m11421/latest/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cytowolf (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious Problem with Greek Mode Names

After taking a look over this article, I was quite surprised to find no mention of the fact that the original Greek names for the modes referred to different ones than their modern application. (This seems to be a problem with the articles about the individual modes as well.)

If you read the original Greek treatises (Aristoxenus, etc.), what we call "Phrygian" was then called "Dorian", our "Dorian" their "Phrygian", our "Ionian" their "Lydian", etc.. This is all due to a very old misunderstanding made by western scholars when they studied the old Greek texts:

"In the tenth century, a few authors applied the names of the Greek tonoi and harmoniai to the church modes. Mistreading Boethius, they named the A-octave the Hypodorian, the B-octave the Hypophrygian, and so forth. The two systems are not at all parallel, however. Although neither medieval treatises nor modern liturgical books refer to the modes by the Greek names (preferring numerals), the ethnic names are generally used in modern textbooks on counterpoint and analysis. Thus, modes 1 and 2 are now often called Dorian and Hypodorian; modes 3 and 4, Phrygian and Hypophrygian; modes 5 and 6, Lydian and Hypolydian; and modes 7 and 8, Mixolydian and Hypomixolydian." - Grout and Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th. ed., 2001. pp. 53-54.

"Tenth-century theorists tried to relate their modes to the complex Greek system as transmitted by Boethius and later Latin writers. This accounts for the Greek names of the eight modes, although nothing else about them is Greek; and through a misunderstanding of Greek theory--by no means the last--even the names were misapplied. (In the Greek modal system, Dorian begins on E, Phrygian on D, Lydian on C, and Mixolydian on B.)" - Hoppin. Medieval Music, 1978. p. 69.

This issue, as far as I can tell, is completely absent from our articles about modes, and should be addressed clearly and consistently throughout them. - Rainwarrior 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is somewhat more complicated than the outline in both quotations above. There is not 'clear' and 'consitant' representation of 'Greek' theory but rather common traits and competing claims. What 'we call' the Phrygian was NOT 'then called Dorian' is a sense consitant with our understanding since we don't use three genera of tunings within a system of conjoined tetrachords like the Greeks did. I'm attempting a larger historical overview of the Musical_system_of_ancient_greece where I attempt to avoid the tendency of conflating 'Greek' systems with Aristoxenos or Ptolemy, for that matter. The 'Greater' or 'Immutable' or 'Perfect' system in any case did not have a 'Dorian' mode in any sense like it was used by the Roman Catholic church, or the Byzantine, for that matter. Alone the controversies which persist to Aristoxenos and hundreds of years later with Ptolemy about what number of tonoi are 'legitimate' makes it clear that it's not really sensible for us to now evoke a lineage. The best we can do is to show where an intersection of the 'reference' tones or cyclical permutations of tetrachords corresponds in 'kind' (regular repetition of like intervals/ratios) between otherwise different systems. The only way I see to consistently and clearly use the terms is to clearly state that the Greek names have NO direct relationship whatsoever, since the Perfect Immutable System of the Greeks had been obscured by the time of the church modes.Mwasheim (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for reducing the Greek section

Although I haven't completed the Musical_system_of_ancient_greece page entirely, it's becoming clear that it will be difficult to maintain those portions which are duplicated as edits have been made to the mode article.

I would suggest reducing the Greek section to a simple gloss. The Tonoi (pitch classes) can be considered modes of the Perfect Immutable System which itself defined the framework of related tetrachords in 3 genera. In a sense, the system in twice modal (3 x 13-15 or 3 x 7 if you chose the older heptatonic or the Ptolemaic form) which only complicates things for those who just wish to think diatonic.

The reduction might read:

The Greeks elaborated a musical system which consisted of interconnected tetrachords over a span of 15 notes. This fixed system could be modulated (tuned) to 3 types (genera, corresponding to 3 different sets of ratios for dividing the perfect fourth) of up to 13 reference tones (pitch keys, analogous to key). The superficial similarity to contemporary usage is in error. The use of the ancient Greek names does not reflect the actual intervals (or keys, for that matter) of the modes of the System elaborated by the Greeks. The interval relations of the 'white keys', re-ordered to represent different modes of a fundamental key do not reflect the 'modes' (tonoi) as they were construed by any of the Greek theorists. In the sense that a different ordering of intervals and a different set of ratios for the intervals (of the tetrachord) yield different effects we could speak of a similarity to later use of the ancient Greek names which otherwise contain different interval relations than those we use today.

I know it's mostly in the negative. I'm not satisfied, but there remains a lot do. For the main, I'd like to ensure that the system article doesn't have to be maintained to reflect changes to the Greek sections in Mode.

I also think the partial discussion of harmonai and ethos should be (mostly) moved into the cultural gloss in the Ancient Greek Music article. This would permit the philosophical and cultural dimension (eg. relationship to dance and theatre) to have a better home than the music theoretical context it now has. Mwasheim (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the whole, I think this is a sensible proposal. I do have two small criticisms, however. First, I don't think it proper to bring pitch classes into a discussion of Greek theory (and your subsequent discussion seems to contradict this, in any case). More important, though, is the fact that your proposed reduction appears to ignore the chromatic and enharmonic genera, thereby misleading the reader into believing the Greek system was (only) diatonic, as the later medieval system was.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's surprising that what I wished to state vis. the diatonic (that this is the CONTEMPORARY reduction) you read into the greek. I mention 3 genera, should I have explicated? If so, how to avoid having to explain enharmonic? How to we make this reduction clearer? This was just an initial attempt, since I'm growing wary of the harmony to meolos and ethos sections... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasheim (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As to pitch class, I used it in accord with Chalmers, describing the tonoi. However, it's ambiguous. But I also allude to it prior to the actual, lame, attempt at a reduction. A more important question is: may we really refer to the tonoi as analogous to key? I think so, though the 3 genera, throw this analogy into discord :)Mwasheim (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your proposal in my haste. You are quite right, the whole point is to refute the analogy to "white keys". As to the analogy with "key", this is a little more complicated. Now that you mention it, I don't see any reference to transposition level, which is the analogue to the modern distinction amongst keys such as B-flat major, D major, C major.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that over the course of times something very much like a permutation by semi-tone transposition entered into the Greek system. However, that's not really the crux of the discussion where confusion between Mode and Tonoi is concerned. How do you propose to apply the idea of transposition level to the System Ametabolan? Sounds to me like a can of worms. For my part, I'll sharpen up the reduction trying to avoid contemporary terms which are used almost exclusively in a 12ET diatonic context.Mwasheim (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jowett 1937

Mwasheim has tagged my hidden-text comment, that "a print version does exist, after all", added to the page-number request for the 1937 edition of Jowett's translation of The Dialogues of Plato with the question "Where?". The entry in the list of references is followed by a link to the OCLC (Online Catalog of the Library of Congress) number. When I click on this, I am directed to a page in my library system listing the five nearest libraries holding copies. A check of the OCLC WorldCat itself lists 1,395 libraries worldwide where a copy may be consulted. This list includes the State University of New York in Binghamton, the Adelaide University Library in Adelaide, Australia, the University of British Columbia Library in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and King's College London, as well as libraries in Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Ukraine, Germany, Bulgaria, and Argentina. Surely it is not all that difficult to find a copy?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to use worldcat, I found nary a copy in any University library near me (Berlin, which is, after all, a capital). I was looking for the English original, needless to say. I have a library card for the American library, which may do the trick, but I doubt it. The Zentral and Landesbibliothek Berlin does not list Jowett in English in it's holdings, which more or less excludes it from being available in any public library near me.Mwasheim (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

for the purposes of citation using scholarly norms (oh, my, German? English?) I found the very useful: http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html in English and Greek.Mwasheim (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

and the jowett with apparatus at http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=767&chapter=93795&layout=html&Itemid=27 However, I'm still uncertain about citing using the form "The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 3 (The Republic, Timaeus, Critias) > BOOK III. > paragraph 1387" which is the result here. From my somewhat foggy memory it was Edition, Volume, Chapter, Page, Verse/Paragraph. If I compare the two aforementioned I can use the Paragraph denotations (without Book) of the latter to find the position in former. More or less.Mwasheim (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

outdent, reconstructing the referencing (book.paragraph?) seems to me secondary. I've now compared three newer translations. Jowett wins hands down. For eloquence and the power of his version of the polemic. Which neither leads me to like Jowett nor Plato, but does lead me to admire the willfulness of their enterprise. At least that much is fun. I digress, again. Mwasheim (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

outdent two. the tufts address for Americans should be http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ... I was searching in Germany. AND the translation at Tufts is NOT Jowett, but it's very usable for all it's lack of literary merits.Mwasheim (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, great. But a page number for the print edition is still desirable, no? I'm not saying that you personally must supply it (you are doing good work on more important things, so why worry about such trivia?), but surely some editor, some time, who has access to one of the 1395 known copies might be able to help out. Who know, that editor might even turn out to be me. There are copies in both my university library and municipal public library, as well as eight or ten other nearby institutions. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia teamwork: if one editor is not close to a source, someone else is sure to be. FWIW, OCLC only lists one copy in Germany, and that is at the Univ. Bibl. Johann Christian Senckenberg. Wherever that is. There cannot be that much demand in Germany for English translations of Plato generally, let alone for 73-year-old American editions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

it boils down to my preference for Jowett in comparison to other, later translations. That obliges me where I see fit to use him to do so as the norm sees fit. It's not important to the enterprise. But to me, since I much prefer his translation. My problem. I'll let it rest unless there is a substantive concern.Mwasheim (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Desired addition

I would like to see a discussion of harmonization in each mode and what cadences are possible. It should serve the needs of a composer/arranger. For instance in the Locrian mode, I find you have to progress VII-II-I to establish the tonic, or approach it enharmonically. Too many authors only view modes in reference to the tonal system or see them only as melody. Each mode has its own way of cadencing, which to me is establishing clearly to the ear the tonic or main note. And any piece using a mode must begin and end on its main note or it will not be clear. Those are the rules I have found from composing in modes on their own terms, not as poor relations to the major/minor tonal system. The article is scholarly, which is good, but it should perhaps begin with a simplified, accessible description.71.23.253.243 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it seems to me that this would be contrary to the guidelines found in What Wikipedia Is Not. On the other hand, you may simply be looking at the wrong article. Much of what you are seeking will be found (at a basic level appropriate to Wikipedia) in the article Properties of musical modes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this gem from the above link? Clearly this article, like many on music theory, does not being with introductory language. "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.170.222 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To which gem are you referring? If there is gobbledy-gook in that article, it should be removed and replaced with plain language. On the other hand, the place to discuss it is on the talk page of "Properties of musical modes", rather than here. Or are you speaking of the quotation from "What Wikipedia Is Not"? Are words like "literate", "assumption", or "initial" beyond the scope of plain English? If so, then this should be taken up on the talk page of that guideline article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A little discovery I made if it hasn't already been discovered.

If you take the C phrygian mode,for example, and get rid of all the notes it uses and use the remaining notes, those notes will make up the E major pentatonic mode. I think it was E, may be d. But it makes it so much easier to learn modes because if you take the major pentatonic and use the notes you don't use in that scale it will make up the phrygian mode. Contrast the C phrygian mode and the E major pentatonic if anyone doesn't get what i'm talking about. -M.H.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.132.251 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Black keys vs the white keys of the piano, basically, represent the complementary (anhemitonic) pentatonic and diatonic sets. But how does this help you to learn the particular rotations of each diatonic set (that is the seven modal diatonic scales in each chromatic transposition), and is this something that should be added to this article?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is 12 notes in an octave. 7 Are used in most scales. That means you have 5 notes left. Those five notes make up a pentatonic scale. The C phrygian C-Db-Eb-F-G-Ab-Bb-C. Now use the notes that are not there D-E-Gb-A-B-D thus making the D pentatonic. Think of the D major pentatonic as the absence of the C phrygian mode and vice versa. This should work for the lydian mode and the other seven note modes I just haven't worked those out yet. But the way it helps to learn is if you learn the D pentatonic that is all you would have to remember for the C phrygian because you would use the keys that are not used in the D pentatonic.I use this technique for guitar because you'll use the opposite shape of the D pentatonic. On piano I just use intervals. Such as, the Minor scale is 2-1-2-2-1-2-2. But yes the Gb major pentatonic will make up the C major scale(when the opposite of the black keys are used.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.132.251 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the scale or mode used, The pentatonic scale could be hemitonic or anhemitonic. This same technique could be used to learn any scale but for the mixoblues scale, that would make up only 4 notes it think. Overall the same priciple is used. And I guess that could be added to the article. I don't know really. Don't forget that there are hundres of modes and scales so the absence of one thing could make up another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.132.251 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I discovered something else. A lot of the diatonic modes fit enharmonically into the major scale depending on which the tonic note is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.31.211 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. 75.48.22.160 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It means, among other things, you can play them approximately on the white keys of a piano. Seven different starting notes (actually seven pitch classes) give seven different modes:

• Starting on C imitates the Ionian mode
• Starting on D imitates the Dorian mode
• Starting on E imitates the Phrygian mode
• Starting on F imitates the Lydian mode
• Starting on G imitates the Mixolydian mode
• Starting on A imitates the Aeolian mode
• Starting on B imitates the Locrian mode

This deserves to be better-known than it already is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is mentioned in two tables shown under column "white note". It's about the first thing every music student learns about this. −Woodstone (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing?

This page is really confusing. Any way we could make this more accessible? Maybe the history section could be turned into a separate article ("History of Musical Modes"?) and a simplified version could be put in here? 97.118.175.80 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since modality is principally an historical subject, this could be a little difficult to arrange. However, could you elaborate a little on what you find confusing about the article as it is presently written?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, find this article difficult to find my way through. "Opaque" might be too strong a word, but somehow the presentation and layout could stand to be clearer. The differences between various epochs of historical terminology are one area of confusion, as I see it. For example, the image at the end of the "Western Church" section shows mode 5, called "Lydian" as the notes of a modern F Ionian major scale.

Examples in modern notation, if that is even possible, might be helpful, if consistently presented. The lists found in "Greek Scales" and "Tonoi" evade my understanding. Not sure what I can do to help here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do see the point. Technically, the entire section on Greek music is outside the scope of this article, since "modes" were an invention of medieval Europe (I think the article actually says that somewhere), but a lot of people think these modes were derived from the ancient Greek system and, to be fair, there are connections. Any attempt to explain these connections necessarily requires an explanation of the profound differences, and I think this is at the heart of the comprehensibility problem for this section. Examples in modern notation for the Greek section might be possible, though difficult, since the concepts of harmonia would require full melodic examples with analyses (describing the contours, characteristic intervallic successions, and other factors identifying specific melodic types), and in fact there are insufficient (and insufficiently understood) surviving examples of actual music from this period.

As to the problem with Mode 5 of the medieval system being identical with the later Ionian scale, this is only partly true, though the dominant form of the scale is what today's musicians are accustomed to calling "Ionian". The text does attempt to explain this situation, but perhaps this section should be scrutinized, and the example would be better with both a B♭ and a B♮, though it would have to be made clear that this is an "either/or" situation. The example for Mode 4 is even more problematic, and quite incorrect as it stands, since the top note should not be B♮ as it currently is shown, but must be B♭, even though the lower B may never be flatted. Once again, a proper explanation requires examples of actual chants and analysis of their melodic types. This much, at least, should be possible to do (e.g., the opening of "Ave Maris Stella" to illustrate the "Dorian leap" characteristic of Mode 1, etc.).

The main barrier to comprehension, it seems to me, is the persistent attempts of readers to equate "mode" to "scale", which is true enough for the modern concept, but quite misleading for the Medieval and Renaissance periods, let alone for earlier eras, where mode refers to characteristic melodic behaviors. Scale type is only one factor in determining these, and even the concept of "scale" may not entirely conform to the modern notion of "seven fixed notes in the octave". This fact should probably be emphasized more strongly right at the beginning of the article. Perhaps it is just as well that the roots of modality in the Greek system have not been traced back here to Babylonian theory.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Modes in the Key of C Major

I object to the title of this section. The phrase "Key of C Major" indicates the Major mode - the modern term for Ionian. Also, keys do not exist until a mode is established. Perhaps a better name would simply be "Modes of C"? --Tim Sabin (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your objection does seem well-founded. However, the phrase "modes of C" sounds like you might mean, e.g., C-Dorian (C-D-E♭-F-G-A-B♭-C), C-Phrygian (C-D♭-E♭-F-G-A♭-B♭-C), etc., whereas the section clearly means the so-called "white-key" modes. The problem with "white-key" modes is that these days not all readers can be counted on to be familiar with the layout of a piano keyboard. Let me think about this, but in the meantime, someone else may come up with a more elegant solution.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the broader picture, I discovered that this section was also badly placed, just ahead of the discussion of Ancient Greek and medieval scales, as if it had something to do with them. I have accordingly moved this section to where it belonged (in the "Modern modal scales" section), and cleaned up the text in order to correct a large number of misused terms and ambiguously stated concepts (e.g., equating the minor-seventh interval with the dominant-seventh chord). How does it look now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right justified image?

Wouldn't it make more sense to either left justify or center the "Pitch constellations of the modern musical modes" image? The right justification looks weird to me -- Dougher (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think it looks odd because it is such a long image, and probably looks just as odd left justified. I've changed it to centered, which looks best to me. If other editors disagree, please feel free to change it back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A diagram showing all modes

I have made a diagram showing all of the standard modern modes, arranged by number of sharps/flats. It is on Wikimedia commons at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_modes_diagram.png

If you think it is useful then please feel free to use it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleedadswell (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Modes and improvisation

Under 4.5, Modern Use, it would be nice to have at least some mention of how modes are used to teach improvisation. This is certainly true in Jazz, and the Dorian and Mixolydian modes are also used quite commonly in Rock. When a blues harmonica player is told the songs in 'A' they're going to grab a 'D' harp. They call it the "cross-key" BobbyBoykin (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving of Music mode & this talk page

Were these moves discussed somewhere? --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a bold sensible move to me. Are there reasons it should not have been done? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing. As I explained in the edit summary, in my experience these moves are consistent with a policy which is commonly adopted in Wikipedia (not only in music, by the way). This policy or guideline is most likely described somewhere in WP:MOS, but even if it were not, it makes perfectly sense to adopt it, when possible, because the most important word in the title (in this case the word "Mode") is the first word. Examples:

• Mode (music)
• Mode (statistics)
• Mode (literature)

• Interval (music)
• Interval (mathematics)
• Interval (time)

• Degree (music)
• Degree (freemasonry)
• Degree (angle)
• Degree (temperature)
• Degree (deodorant)

• Transposition (music)
• Transposition (mathematics)
• Transposition (logic)
• Transposition (law)
• Transposition (chess)
• Transposition (telecommunications)

However, as you probably know the old title Musical mode still exists and redirects here.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The move should nevertheless have been discussed first, and there will now be many dozens, perhaps hundreds of redirects to correct in articles from Tonality to Olivier Messiaen. That said, I agree with your reasoning. This move seems long overdue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When you move an article, you are supposed to check only for "double redirects" (i.e. pages which are redirected to the old page Musical mode, which in turn redirects to this article) or broken redirects. Do not worry about them. They have already been corrected. There are BOTs (one of them is called User:Xqbot) which automatically corrected them yesterday before I could do it myself, and even before this discussion was started by Tim Sabin.

The hundreds of direct links from articles such as Diatonic scale to the old page Musical mode will still work correctly (with a very short delay) because the old page redirects here, and I guess they are not a problem for MediaWiki, as I was not asked to "fix" them (see WP:MOVE). Paolo.dL (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me also say that I was not supposed to discuss these moves before doing them. The reference to WP:BOLD is appropriate in this case (see previous comment by Just plain Bill). If I have good reasons to edit and I do it in good faith, providing a quite exhaustive edit summary, not only I can do it, but Wikipedia asks me to boldly do it. After that, and not before, a discussion can be started by someone else, and in this case I am always willing to participate actively and respectfully. I sometimes start a time-consuming discussion before editing, but in this case I felt it would have been a waste of time. The reason why Wikepedia does not ask editors to discuss their edits a priori is because most people would not edit if it were so difficult to edit. That's how Wikipedia works and the reason why it grows so fast and so healthy. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the WP:BOLD page, and it says "Be Bold" only applies to page edits, not moves. I agree that these pages should have been moved for consistency's sake, but disagree with the way you went about it. My initial question was because I would expect a discussion before moving. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article is just a series of edits. Important edits, but edits. You can think of it as an edit to the article title, together with the creation of a redirection from the old to the new title. I did it with a sound reason, very easy to grasp by everybody and well explained in my edit summary, which even contained three internal links as examples. And since everybody, including you, seem to agree about the need to do it, I think that a previous discussion would have been only a waste of time, definitely against the spirit of WP:BOLD. I receive your suggestions respectfully, but I think that I acted correctly. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Musical scale, a case in which a discussion before moving was in my opinion necessary, because the topic was previously discussed without reaching consensus. And hence I posted there a comment before editing, and I will not move unless consensus is reached. You might help. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern names vs. Ancient Greek names

Ionian = Lydian (Ancient Greek name)

Dorian = Phrygian (Ancient Greek name)

Phrygian = Dorian (Ancient Greek name)

Lydian = Sintolydian (Ancient Greek name)

Mixolydian = Ionian (Ancient Greek name)

Aeolian = Aeolian (Ancient Greek name)

Locrian = Mixolydian (Ancient Greek name) says Anthony Ashton ("Harmonograph: A Visual Guide to the Mathematics of Music"). Böri (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some point to all this? These equivalents could only apply to the diatonic genus of the ancient Greek harmoniai, of course (along with several further qualifications), but are they inaccurately represented in the article at present, or what?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The modern Ionian mode was in fact "the Lydian mode" in Ancient Greece. I wanted to say this. Böri (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, this is true only of the diatonic genus of the scale used in the Lydian harmonia. Does this affect the present article at all? This is, after all, what talk pages like this are for—not for a general discussion of a subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do 'modern' modes come from?

This is a very confusing subject, and the article doesn't entirely clear up the confusion. It appears that there are three different 'systems' of modes - Greek, Church (medieval and later), and Modern - which use a set of overlapping terminology derived from Greek (Dorian, etc) but apply it to different things. It is understandable that the medieval composers and writers got in a muddle over the Greek usage, because they had very little info to go on, but it is not clear why the 'Modern' system is different from both Greek and Church systems. When did the Modern system come into common use, and why?86.179.214.155 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at the current version of the article, because I have an uneasy feeling that the answer actually is found in one of the subsidiary articles, such as Lydian mode. The short answer is that the connection between the Greek harmoniai and the medieval modes is more tenuous than you appear to believe, and the connection between medieval and modern modes is fairly straightforward. The "modern system" is actually that of Common Practice Tonality, and "modal" usage within that context begins to establish itself as a separate idea during the 18th century. The chief difference from medieval practice is a more rigid adherence to the diatonic notes of the scale. For example, in the medieval system, there is no practical difference between the Lydian scale and what we call the major scale, or between the Dorian and what we call the minor scale. In order to differentiate "modal flavor" from the chromatic flexibility of the upper half of the minor scale, for example, it became necessary to insist on always using the minor-seventh scale degree, especially in ascent to the tonic, and the sixth degree had to be always major to identify Dorian, and always minor to identify Aeolian. No such practice existed up to the 16th century, and indeed it was only with Glareanus in the mid-16th century that a theoretical difference was made between Dorian and Aeolian on the one hand, and Lydian and Ionian on the other. I shall see what I can do to clear this up (using reliable sources, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful. I came to the article because I've been reading the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory and was trying to make sense of this bewildering subject! Just a couple of points that occur to me. First, the emphasis in music theory and pedagogy probably shifted from vocal (choral)to keyboard applications between 1650 and 1800, and on the keyboard the 'modern' interpretation of modes is very easy to explain. Second, and related to the first, the general adoption of tempered scales (whether equal temperament or some other 'well-tempered' system) must have had some impact on how people interpreted modes.86.143.237.7 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would put that shift about a century earlier but, yes, it is true that "On 31 December 1600 all the Renaissance composers died". They were all singers, of course, and they were probably assassinated by the gang of violinists and keyboardists who took over composition in the Baroque. I'm not sure how much easier this makes the explanation of the modes, but it may very well have had some effect on the way in which they are explained. The "modern interpretation", on the other hand (as it is construed in the present article), does not really emerge until the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, when theorist found themselves explaining the efforts of historicist composers like Bruckner, who began attempting to evoke the dim and distant musical past in a way similar to the literary efforts of Walter Scott at around the same point in history. As for the tempering of scales, I do not really see what importance this has, unless of course you are a devotee of the chant performance style cultivated by Ensemble Organum, which includes ornamentation that slides back and forth between scale pitches, notes landing squarely between B-natural and B-flat, etc. If you are having a difficult time coming to terms with what the Cambridge History has got to say on the subject, I should probably steer you toward what is generally regarded as the last word on the subject of modes, which is Harold Powers's essay in the New Grove, cited in this article. It is a daunting article, probably the longest non-biographical article in New Grove, and not at all easy to grasp on first reading but, in the end, will set straight most if not all of the misapprehensions about the history of modal theory. Rockstro's article in the original Grove (also cited here) will put the icing in the cake, in that it includes a huge amount of material on the 19th-century point of view that has been avoided by Powers, probably on grounds that chant theory after 1600 is not particularly relevant. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the use of modes in jazz or by composers like Shostakovich or Glass.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

intervals

"an ordered series of intervals that, with the key or tonic (first tone), defines that scale's intervals, or steps" how can intervals define intervals? isn't that circular?

It certainly is! Clearly, someone typoed "interval" for "pitch" or "note" in one of the two places. I have decided it must be the earlier place, and fixed the passage accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Major and minor

Why are the modes other than ionian and aeolian not used anymore? Is there something bad about them? Have people develop theories of harmonies similar to ionian and aeolian for those modes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that no one answered Money is tight's question. Apparently he didn't find the answer in the article and wanted some help. That also indicates that this article is a place where people come for answers to this kind of questions. In any case I think his assumption that what happened was that the other modes were abandoned and only two were left and that's all it took for the tonal major-minor system to come into existence should have been corrected. Contact Basemetal here 08:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, also. Somehow I missed this question last September, or I might have responded to it then. However, I have just read through this article and cannot find any statement in it that implies this at all. If anything, it seems to say quite the opposite. In the first main section, titled "Modes and scales", the second paragraph states that, by the early 19th century, "mode" came to refer to something "outside of the major/minor system that could be used to evoke religious feelings or to suggest folk-music idioms". Surely this implies that modal writing continued in use for these purposes through at least 1850. This might be expanded a bit to include something about modal usage in the later 19th century (perhaps citing examples from Brahms or Bruckner, or even mentioning the Cecilian Movement), as well as a geneal mention of modal practice in the 20th century. This would serve as an introduction to the more detailed discussion toward the end of the article in a fairly long section describing "The modern modes" (the word "modern" should probably be specified as referring to usage from the 17th century or so down to the present time). This all sounds as if Money is tight had heard this rumor somewhere else and, upon reading this article, could not find confirmation of it. Despite this, he formulated the question as if this false assumption acquired at some unspecified place were true. If there is a reliable source for such a wrong-headed view, then I suppose it might be added here, in order that further sourced material explaining why it is wrong might be added. (To make such a defense now, when no such question has been raised, seems pointless.) The other half of the question, however (are there theories of harmonies specific to modes?) is only partially addressed in the present form of this article. The currently proposed merger back into this article of the once-split-away Properties of musical modes might help to answer this question, except that as it stands that article actually has less in it than this one already has got.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you think I was implying Money's tight got his wrong assumptions from this article? If I did, it was wholly unintentional. Who knows where he might have gotten them? You do find stuff like "In the Baroque period of music, all modes except the Ionian and Aeolian were discarded. These were then renamed the major and minor scale." (verbatim from this Web page) floating around. Contact Basemetal here 16:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I left the impression that anyone other than Money is tight suggested this idea might have come from this article. Because the question was posted here, it is logical to assume that the question is directed at something said in the article itself. In the present instance it is particularly odd because, as I said, the article seems to make it perfectly clear (complete with some citations from reliable sources) that this is not the case at all. There may be sources out there somewhere that are full of such misinformation (I have actually seen books with titles beginning "The Idiot's Guide to …" and have often wondered why anyone would want to be guided by an idiot) and, if they are receiving sufficient attention and harm is therefore being caused, then they ought to be brought into the discussion here. However, until such cases are actually pointed out, it seems best to regard this as gossip picked up on the playground from jokers luring the gullible with tall tales ("The earth really is flat, you know—just look at it!").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Since in section Mode_(music)#Summary there's a table of the modes transposed to C and their signatures, which I did not insert there, I thought it made sense to explain how modal signatures are arrived at. But I've hanged around this place long enough to just know someone is bound to get up and loudly protest that "Wikipedia is not a handbook, an instruction manual, a guidebook, a textbook, a how-to book, a compendium, a recipe book, a collection of mathematical formulas, a travel book, a FAQ, a tourist guide, a list of hotels or restaurants in Paris, etc.". Of course the information that is presented in my "recipe" could be presented in a totally factual way, with not a shadow of a hint that you're explaining to anyone how to do something. At the cost, I'd say, of being more pedantic, unreadable and silly looking. But let's just wait and see what happens. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-merger Merger proposal

Back in 2005 a chunk was taken out of this article to make Properties of musical modes. I don't find that article particularly useful. I propose to merge it back here and make it a redirect. Objections? Contact Basemetal here 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be objections I'll bring back here whatever is in the other article, and there is very little that's there that's not already here. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Contact Basemetal here 09:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Relative?

Is it OK to use the term "relative" for modes (modal scales, transposed modes, with the same signature) as in "The relative major of F dorian is E♭ major" and vice versa? Contact Basemetal here 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have heard this done; I cannot recall seeing it in print, but I wouldn't be surprised. Personally, I would avoid confusing "major" and "minor" with mode names, or you might end up saying foolish things like "the relative major of E♭ Ionian is E♭". More seriously, is the "relative minor" of F Dorian C or F, since the minor scale can use either the Dorian and Aeolian sixth scale degree? There should be no confusion in saying "the relative Mixolydian of C♯ Dorian is F♯".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Modes transposed to a common tonic of A

I believe it may be useful to show a table of the modes transposed to a common tonic of A, alongside the one given for the tonic of C - this will make the "minor modes" more transparent. 46.117.77.204 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How would that be more transparent than the current table with C as the common tonic? When your eye runs down the "E" column, there is a point where this turns to E♭. In a table with a common tonic of A, it would be a matter of C♯ turning to C♮. I fail to see the advantage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mode as a general term

I reworked this section, because the referred essay of Harold Powers does either not get to the point or the quoting reader did not see the wood before the trees. The synthesis is indeed long before Powers, but we do not have Greek references preceding the Hagiopolites treatise. The earliest theoretical source might be al-Kindi who documented an interest for the Greek octoechos for 8th-century Baghdad. The octoechos reform was already done by the end of the 7th century, although it was a controversial issue among Byzantine churchmen. We know about a Carolingian interest, but the theory which reflected the synthesis, was a century later. Platonykiss (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

COI?

Anonymous User:93.76.27.53 (an IP address that I observe is in Kiev, Ukraine) has now three times removed a citation to a standard textbook by the late Yuri Kholopov. With the most recent reversion, a serious charge of a financial conflict of interest was made in the edit summary: "Just look who added this link (not quite appropriate) and read the paragraph WP:FCOI)". I have provisionally removed the entire paragraph, and invite User:93.76.27.53 to explain further. As I said in my own edit summary, I have no idea who it was who added this reference (not a "link"), and cannot fathom how anyone could have a financial interest that would be in conflict with adding it. For clarity, the contentious source is/was: Kholopov, Yuri (2003). Гармония. Теоретический курс. 2nd ed. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Lan'. ISBN 5-8114-0516-2 (English: Harmony. A Theoretical Course). The subject of the contested paragraph is the relationship between Carolingian chant theory and that of Byzantine and Znamenny chant. Because my only direct contact with Prof Kholopov was attending a brilliant presentation on the subject of Znamenny chant which he made at a session of the American Musicological Society in Phoenix some years ago, I would be astonished if the reliability of this source could possibly be in question. Since User:Michael Bednarek has also recently reverted 93.76.27.53's deletion of this reference, I also invite his input to this discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• My revert was purely technical. The citation was attached to a claim related to Znamenny chant; removing the citation with the edit summary, "Reference (Kholopov 2003, 192) moved to the article 'Znamenny chant', where it is more relevant." where 93.76.28.14 had it just added, shows unfamiliarity with Wikipedia citation rules. Same for 93.76.27.219's "Reference to the article 'Znamenny chant' there is more than enough." The reference was added by User:Olorulus on 11 September 2014 in 2 edits at 10:40 and 10:45. That user, Sergey Lebedev, states that he wrote his thesis under Kholopov. Even so, I can't fathom either how FCOI can arise. Anyway, if the paragraph "Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists … Russian Znamenny chant as well." (now removed) is of value in this arrticle, then this source ought to be included. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would not be amiss, on your part, to explain why page 192 of the source, which is necessary, as you believe, is really relevant, and not a brazen advertisement with calculation that here they don't read in Russian. --93.76.26.42 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether that paragraph is necessary or even relevant, and I didn't write that. If it is, the Kholopov citation, or any other suitable source, should be used. You still seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's requirement for citations. A source provided in Znamenny chant is not sufficient to support a related statement in Mode (music). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is quite clear that you don't know what is written on page 192, reference to which you rashly returned to the paragraph where it no looks as evidence of the veracity of the foregoing, but as brazen advertising, trampling the basics of community. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If the citation supports the text about eight modes in Znamenny chant, where you inserted it, it is also appropriate to use that source here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your kids logic is not added sustainability to your a faltering reputation. --93.76.29.110 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Olorulus wrote (2012 [1] English translation): Has laid out scan (PDF) the second edition of the seminal book (textbook) Yu. N. Kholopov "Harmony. Theoretical course." For convenience, add bookmarks to PDF on the main sections of the book.

In the near future I plan to do reference system for this book (Index nominum, Index rerum, Index notarum), which is sorely lacking.

I ask all noticed typographical and factual errors in the book YuNH notify me at the address indicated on the errata page. These comments will necessarily be taken into account when re-release of the book. --93.76.26.131 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with writers adding their own scholarly works as sources to Wikipedia articles – happens all the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is done all the time. Further, while much has now been cleared up about who was responsible for adding this particular citation, nothing said so far supports the claim that Olorulus=Sergey Lebedev has a financial motive in citing his mentor's book, let alone how FCOI can possibly apply, since it plainly states that "a close financial relationship with a topic" is a possible reason for not writing articles about that topic—it says nothing at all about citing sources. How does Olorulus stand to benefit financially from the concept of musical modes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is not a scholarly work but re-release of the textbook, which is not distributed for free, and is massively sold by the publisher. This is a commercial activity, which in dire need of advertising. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this give Olorulus a financial interest in the subject "Mode (music)"? It is neither a copyrighted nor a patented concept.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Now — no way. You removed from the article a possibility to advertise the Kholopov's textbook (not indisputably valuable). --93.76.28.63 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly ("Now — no way"), you are withdrawing your allegation of FCOI. There has never been any issue raised about advertising anything at all, least of all Kholopv's textbook, which was cited as a source. I agree that nothing is indisputably valuable—this is a truism—but this text clearly satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. Do you have some further point to make, or shall we just restore the paragraph on the relationship of the Carolingian system and Znamenny chant, supported by the citation to Kholopov's text, as originally added by Olorulus?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. If you simply quote here a fragment of the specified in Kholopov's textbook page 192, where is written about the said relationship, the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered. --93.76.27.192 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If a citation in a reputable source supports the text, it should not be removed. I suspect that Grove, MGG, and many other publications gained some Wikipedia readers/editors as customers because they are used for references here. I subscribed for a time to The New Yorker because of Alex Ross's articles quoted here, and to the The New York Times for Anthony Tommasini and others. So what? They're still quotable, reputable, reliable sources. I suggest you stop your cruisade and drop the stick. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Besides, what does quoting a relevant passage from the page (e.g., Древнерусские гласы – одна из великих ладовых систем, сравнимая по важности с другими великими ладовыми массивами – древнегреческой и западной грегорианской) have to do with the claim of financial interest?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not kidding? You really argue that the passage Old Russian voices — one of the great modal systems, comparable in importance to other great modal arrays — Greek and Western Gregorian may be valid sourse of all this:: Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists did not simply use the same modes described in the Hagiopolites, they invented an own eight mode system which was used to structure the melodic memory of plainchant, since cantors were asked to learn the Roman repertoire. The Byzantine hymns were imported to Slavic chant traditions, when the monastic chant books (sticherarion, heirmologion) were translated in Ohrid and Novgorod. The translation of echos (ἦχος) was glas (гласъ "voice"). Hence, a system of eight glas can be found in later Russian Znamenny chant as well.? --93.76.29.10 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

All you asked for was a random quote or two "about the said relationship" in order that "the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered". This makes absolutely no sense to me at all (perhaps we have a language-barrier problem here—my Russian is almost non-existent, and I have no Ukrainian at all) , but I am trying to fulfill your requirements. The issue is not (though perhaps it should be) whether or not the cited passage verifies everything in the paragraph (it verifies some things, but not others). The issue is whether WP:FCOI is being violated here. I see no grounds at all to support this charge against User:Olorulus.

If you re-release in English The Great Textbook by your Genious Teacher, will be much easier for you to push its advertising in articles of this Wikipedia part. --93.76.29.227 (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC) It seemed that a paragraph was signed User Olorulus. --93.76.29.95 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the cited source as not supporting either the entire paragraph or specific points within it, then the correct procedure is either to mark the citation with a {{failed verification}} template, or to mark specific points not addressed in it with {{citation needed}}, not by making wild and unsupportable accusations against another editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems wild your with Michael Bednarek unsupportable belief that for paragraph (now removed) was extremely needful the reference to page where is written: «what the modes in the native ancient Russian melodies, we don't know; it's not known how many them, how they should be called, what their indications; we do not know if the voices and the modes are identical or not (Russian: что за лады в родных древнерусских мелодиях, мы не знаем; неизвестно, сколько их, как их надо именовать, како­вы их признаки; не знаем, тождественны ли лады гласам или нет)». Ones who understand the matter of the financial interests will not exclude from those annoying advertising the intended for re-releasing textbook. --93.76.27.18 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cantus firmus as reference

Reference to cantus firmus is misleading. Any pre-existing melody could give (and actually gave) an impetus to polyphonic elaboration, like dozens of 'L'homme armé' (Armed man) settings, 'Pour quoy me bat mes maris' (Why does my husband beat me), 'Fortuna desperata' or other popular or paraliturgical songs, or hexachordal cantus firmi etc., which are not related to the described (mainly Carolingian) concept of mode Olorulus (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See ББК 85.314 я73 Х801 (Пляскина, Е. В. 2010) с.11: «сantus firmus <...> was used <.,.> creating intonational and modal unity (Russian: сantus firmus <...> использовался <...> создавая интонационное и ладовое единство)» --93.76.27.129 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of a "see also" section is to direct the readers' attention to other (English) Wikipedia articles that include pertinent discussion related to the subject. As far as I can tell, ББК 85.314 я73 Х801 is not an English Wikipedia article. If in fact it contains important information missing from the "cantus firmus" article, then it should be added there. If in turn that information sheds important light on the subject of musical modes beyond what is discussed here, then the "see also" link would be valid.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Difference between Byzantine and Carolingian octoechos

I wonder, why only the Carolingian concept is referred here?

The comparison between Greek and Latin reception is not simply the system of how to order the eight church tones, but also two different modal concepts. The Latin system really established a system of seven octaves (eight, if you regard the species D—d from two different angles, a plagal D—G—d and an authentic D—a—d aspect), since the finales of authentic and plagal modes are the same within each pair.

The difference is that the Byzantine octoechos order the finales of each kyrios-plagios pair in pentachords, so that there are in fact just four octaves which do establish the melodic ambitus: C—c (tetartos), D—d (protos), E—e (devteros), and F—f (tritos). The difference is just, if the finalis is on the bottom (plagios) or in the middle (kyrios) of the octave.

In fact, Powers never commented on the tetraphonic construction of the Byzantine tone system which belongs to a tone system different from Great Perfect System. We only find the seven octaves, if we try to establish an octave (ascending or descending) on each of the eight finales, but this is the level of melos.

Any suggestions who did ever treat this problem? I do only know the compilator of alia musica who was the only one to comment on it:

For the full octave (gr. diapason) another tone might be added, which is called ἐμμελῆς: "according to the melos".

In practice, this means that the descending octave from the finalis of echos devteros is b—B and not augmented (b—B flat) like in the lower tritos register (B flat—b flat), and the melos of tritos is within F—f, despite that there is an f sharp in the higher tetartos register (G—g). --Platonykiss (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename this page from "Mode (music)" to "Mode (music theory)"?

Let me know what you think.

104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why bother? It only makes the disambiguator more cumbersome. It would only make sense if there was a difference between "Mode (music)" and "Mode (music theory)" which, as far as I can see, there isn't.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mode (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415140501/http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm11/ordoulidis_the_greek_popular_modes.pdf to http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm11/ordoulidis_the_greek_popular_modes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)