Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 6, 2008 Members Posted May 6, 2008 It seems that gennation, maybe others as well, stated in several posts that mode and modality derive from another musical concept then key, scale and tonality. The term mode is used exclusively in modality and church music. And key, scale and tonality is terminology used solely in functional harmony. So here a new attempt to clarify the differences between the two eclectic and fundamental dissimilar music concepts. The E Phrygian is the same as C Major. D Dorian is the same as C Major.It seems as though all these modes, while having a different letter in front of the name, are the same as a natural scale is a different key. I take the quote above from another thread to explain the difference between Key/Scale/Tonality and Mode/Modality. Key/Scale/Tonality versa Mode/ModalityIt can be said that the mode Ionian on C is a tone row which uses the same notes as the modern C major scale. Phygian on E has no equivalent modern scale name. Even though that both, the C major scale and the Phrygian mode on E, encompass a tone row which share the same note names but use another tonic or tonal center, the two have nothing else in common. Mode names are only in use in the theory and practice of modality, in the chord scale theory of jazz and some 20th century music. The chord scale theory of jazz harmony and the mode level of jazz modality are completly different concepts. Key, Scale and Tonality (Functional Harmony)In music theory, the term key is used in different and sometimes contradictory ways. C major is a scale, a tonality and a key. As scale it is a unique structure of its own. As tonality it is a system of hierarchical pitch relationships which are based on a key center or tonic. As key, the letter 'C' in C major identifies the tonic triad, the chord C-E-G. E phrygian is a Mode (Non-functional Modality)The letter E identifies the Finalis, in modern terminology also called root, base fondamentale or end tone. The modes are used in old church music, and today in modern non-fuctional modality, i.e. modal jazz as well in other 20th century 'earnest' music. The church music has nothing in common with modal jazz or with any other 20th century modal music. Church music can still be found in the hymn book disposed in most churches. the mode is often named in the hymn books. Modal jazz and old church share only the mode names, otherwise the two have nothing in common. Modal jazz is a relative new music which uses the names of the old church modes. When we use mode names, then we talk exclusively about church music, modal jazz or modal writing as in 20th century music. Modal jazz is non-functional harmony which knows no substitute for the tonic chord, also modal music can not be reharmonized, and the levels can not be substituted as in functional harmony. Detail: due to a misinterpretation of the Latin text in mediaeval times modes were given the wrong Greek names. ExceptionsIn jazz harmony we have a subset called "Chord Scale", where a particular scale is attributed to any possible degree in progression. Functional jazz harmony is all jazz which is not modal, or any other stellar harmony concept, i.e. harmolodic. Harmolodic is another, third concept; Ornette Coleman defines harmolodics as: "The use of the physical and the mental of one's own logic made into an expression of sound to bring about the musical sensation of unison executed by a single person or with a group." The chord scale concept of jazz harmony is a new, modern theory where the mode names as well the modern scales names are used to indentify the corresponding chord scales for each degree. To attribute scales to a chord for any degree is a new method. Detail: interesting is that with the theory of jazz, any functional and non functional can be analyzed, including any classical, romantic renaissance and baroque music; the other way around, analyzing jazz, rock, fusion, pop etc. with the terminology of 'classical' harmony, that's cumbersome. Chicken or the eggAll of the above are theories precipitated and extracted from existing music from the past. It seems that music and the theory thereof come into existance simultaneously, but I tend to believe that the theories comes later, especially when the composer or improviser does not reveal the theory behind his music. But this is a similar dilemma and question like what was first, the egg or the chicken. For me, any theories and definitions are as good as any other theories. .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.