# Scales vs. Modes: What's the Difference?



## millionrainbows

I like what Rick Beato says here at :30.


----------



## tdc

Ok so by his own definition at the start of the video a mode is in fact a scale. However the modes can also be seen to be subsets of certain scales, he chooses 5 such scales to present in this video. But what he doesn't explain is why these 5 scales? Can't subset modes be created off of many different scales? What is so special about those 5?


----------



## Bwv 1080

What is he arguing, that scale means a set pattern of intervals spanning an octave and mode refers to which one of those serves as tonal center? 

Is that controversial?

Do we have to be pedantic and refer to half-whole and whole-half modes of the octatonic or diminished scale?


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Ok so by his own definition at the start of the video a mode is in fact a scale. However the modes can also be seen to be subsets of certain scales, he chooses 5 such scales to present in this video. But what he doesn't explain is why these 5 scales? Can't subset modes be created off of many different scales? What is so special about those 5?


He chose those five scales because he and others like them. Listen to Beato at the peril of your brain cells. He seems to have a talent for butchering basic terms.

_Mode_ refers to a collection of pitches (as might serve as the basis of a composition, passage, or improvisation) differentiated by _function_, that is, according to which serves as final, reciting tone, tonal center, etc. The same collection can define multiple different modes depending on how functions are assigned. _Scale_ refers to a collection of pitches (such as those defining a mode) considered as a series ascending or descending by conjunct motion. _Mode_ is in the same category as _key_; Alas, scale is often used loosely (sloppily) as a synonym for mode or key, as Beato does.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> Ok so by his own definition at the start of the video a mode is in fact a scale. However the modes can also be seen to be subsets of certain scales, he chooses 5 such scales to present in this video. But what he doesn't explain is why these 5 scales? Can't subset modes be created off of many different scales? What is so special about those 5?


Because he is deriving them from the same parent scale, duhh. Also, certain modes of the melodic minor scale are particularly useful to jazz players and soundtrack composers.

I.e., this approach places the emphasis on getting new sounds, not as "definitions" or theoretical distinctions.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> What is he arguing, that scale means a set pattern of intervals spanning an octave and mode refers to which one of those serves as tonal center? Is that controversial?


Yes, to some academics I'm sure it is.



> Do we have to be pedantic and refer to half-whole and whole-half modes of the octatonic or diminished scale?


I think we can leave the pendantics to the academics, who probably don't recognize those as scales.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Not that I know anything about music, but I've always assumed that a mode and a scale are the same thing. Though we generally talk about the Major and Minor scales, these are also modes, Ionian (major) and Aeolian (minor), using those Greeky names we give to modes. And I realize we all know about the various Church modes and such.... But I also assume that any structured series of tones within an octave (or possibly within a couple of octaves!) can be called a scale, and also a mode? I don't know. If one constructs a personal series of tones (having as we would suppose, a tonal base or center, a tonic note) to use for compositional purposes (and the series of tones could involves microtones, too), would we still call such a scale? I don't know this, but … are there actually scales (modes) that have been named for composers who created and used them?

Frankly, life was much simpler when a mode was simply ice-cream, as in Pie à la Mode.


----------



## david johnson

the order of whole/half steps determines the mode/scale


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

EdwardBast said:


> He chose those five scales because he and others like them. Listen to Beato at the peril of your brain cells. He seems to have a talent for butchering basic terms.
> 
> _Mode_ refers to a collection of pitches (as might serve as the basis of a composition, passage, or improvisation) differentiated by _function_, that is, according to which serves as final, reciting tone, tonal center, etc. The same collection can define multiple different modes depending on how functions are assigned. _Scale_ refers to a collection of pitches (such as those defining a mode) considered as a series ascending or descending by conjunct motion. _Mode_ is in the same category as _key_; Alas, scale is often used loosely (sloppily) as a synonym for mode or key, as Beato does.


This makes sense generally, and perhaps should be the way things are, but we do call tonic, supertonic, dominant, etc. "scale degrees" so I'm not really sure. It's a good question, but I think using "major scale", "major key", and "major mode" interchangeably is probably OK.


----------



## Woodduck

There's a trap here, in that the use of the term "mode" has changed over the cenuries. Rick Beato seems to take "mode" in the modern, popular sense to mean the same thing as "scale": major mode = major scale, Lydian mode = Lydian scale. I guess that's fine if we're talking about contemporary usage, but it leaves nothing to discuss.

A scale is nothing but a collection of pitches arranged in a series and defined by a specific sequence of intervals. Historically, a mode wasn't just a scale but a system of pitch relationships _utilizing_ a scale, making possible certain types of melodies determined by the differing functions of the tones being utilized. Two pieces of music might utilize the same scale but be in different modes, depending on the functions assigned to the notes within the scale. A piece utilizing what we call the "Dorian" _scale_ would be in the Dorian _mode_ if its "final" (tonic) were on D and its "dominant" on A, but if its dominant were on F it would be in the Hypodorian mode. Same scale, different mode.

The medieval modes were conceived when musical thinking was fundamentally melodic. In modern harmonic thinking there's no such thing as a "dominant" on the fourth scale degree, and so no such thing as the Hypodorian mode. For all practical purposes the Dorian scale now implies only the Dorian mode.

That's my understanding of the matter, after having not thought about this for decades. I welcome corrections from those with greater expertise.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm pleased with these responses. The only clarification I could make would be to say that a scale is not a "sequence" of notes; it's only presented that way for clarity. It's more like an "index" of notes, with no order. It's an unordered set.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm pleased with these responses. The only clarification I could make would be to say that a scale is not a "sequence" of notes; it's only presented that way for clarity. It's more like an "index" of notes, with no order. It's an unordered set.


How could a scale be unordered? To have a C major scale you have to play the notes in order (sequence) starting with C or you don't have a scale at all (and if you start on another note of the set you have a different scale). A piece in the KEY of C major doesn't have to present the notes of the scale in any particular order, but key isn't the same as scale. The scale exists only if it begins on C and ascends or descends in the proper sequence. Do you mean something different by "order"?


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> a scale is not a "sequence" of notes; it's only presented that way for clarity. It's more like an "index" of notes, with no order. It's an *unordered set*.


MR. MR, I never tired of seeing you annoying people you consider "box-like thinkers" :lol::lol::lol: but aren't you going a bit too far this time? What's the third note of the C major scale then?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Woodduck said:


> A)How could a scale be unordered?
> 
> B) To have a C major scale you have to play the notes in order (sequence) starting with C or you don't have a scale at all (and if you start on another note of the set you have a different scale).
> C)A piece in the KEY of C major doesn't have to present the notes of the scale in any particular order, but key isn't the same as scale.
> D)The scale exists only if it begins on C and ascends or descends in the proper sequence."


A) Any n-note (taking octave equivalence) melody can be considered n-note unordered scale. You have no specified sequence of pitches.
B) No, that's ordered presentation of the scale.
C) The concept of "key" has more to do with standard (meantone) notation system, not with scales (or modes) . (You can notate a piece, written in C major using the key of F 1/4 sharp in 24 equal (which will be contorted meantone) or whatever, if you want, right?, but I doubt it's gonna be very smart thing to do)
D) See B).

I don't think that "musical set theory" uses mathematical concepts of order, relations etc in a very formal way, but even naive understanding of these basic ideas can give us insights (I am not totally sure how the concept of tonic works mathematically; anyway, modes should be specific permutation of the scale - again, they can be ordered or unordered.)

Anyway, sometimes in real music it can be hard to judge whether specific scale and which mode exactly is used - that's why it is easy to consider the introductory or ending fragments as the main "tonality".


----------



## Woodduck

BabyGiraffe said:


> A) Any n-note (taking octave equivalence) melody can be considered n-note unordered scale. You have no specified sequence of pitches.


What is an "n-note melody"? How can "any melody" be considered a scale? How do you have a specific scale without a sequence? The same bunch of notes, sequenced differently, define different scales. The notes CDEFGAB, in that order, define a C major scale, but the same notes in the order ABCDEFG define an A minor scale. In the order DEBACFG they define no scale at all. The sequence determines the scale.



> B) No, that's ordered presentation of the scale.


If you don't assume that notes belong in a particular sequence, they aren't a scale. You may have a melody _utilizing_ the notes of a scale, but not the scale itself. A scale IS an ordered presentation.



> C) The concept of "key" has more to do with standard (meantone) notation system, not with scales (or modes) . (You can notate a piece, written in C major using the key of F 1/4 sharp in 24 equal (which will be contorted meantone) or whatever, if you want, right?, but I doubt it's gonna be very smart thing to do)


What difference does tuning make? The concept of "key" belongs to a tonal system, which is _based on_ a scale. To change key - to modulate - is to move to a different tonal center, which is to choose a different scale as the basis of operations. This works well in some tuning systems and not in others, but that's a practical matter and doesn't affect the concept of key.



> I don't think that "musical set theory" uses mathematical concepts of order, relations etc in a very formal way, but even naive understanding of these basic ideas can give us insights (I am not totally sure how the concept of tonic works mathematically; anyway, modes should be specific permutation of the scale - again, they can be ordered or unordered.)
> 
> Anyway, sometimes in real music it can be hard to judge whether specific scale and which mode exactly is used - that's why it is easy to consider the introductory or ending fragments as the main "tonality".


I find this unclear.


----------



## millionrainbows

A scale is presented as starting on its key note, and covers an octave. There is no order; the scale is in no way a melodic entity. The key note specifies the starting pitch, and the scale is presented as a series of ascending notes as a convention. This is because it covers an octave. These are just "pitch classes," not actual notes in any register. The scale can also be described with letter-names: a-b-c-d-e-f-g.

Why the protest? The same old modern music grudge.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> A scale is presented as starting on its key note, and covers an octave. There is no order; the scale is in no way a melodic entity. The key note specifies the starting pitch, and the scale is presented as a series of ascending notes as a convention. This is because it covers an octave. These are just "pitch classes," not actual notes in any register. The scale can also be described with letter-names: a-b-c-d-e-f-g.
> 
> Why the protest? The same old modern music grudge.


It's perfectly obvious that ABCDEFG(A) constitutes a scale, while AFBDEGC does not. Those are the _notes of_ the A minor scale, but not the scale itself. No one hearing that sequence of notes played on the piano in the next room is going to say, "Ah yes, they're practicing scales."

This has nothing to do with "modern music."


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Scales/modes (including medieval modes - which are form of pre-compositional rules, not scales/modes in modern understanding) are just abstractions.

When you hear a short melody, you can say - it was composed in "x" scale, despite not being ordered (and usually there are also repetitions). (And "tonic" = most stable acoustically/final note - if there are no modulations in the melody)

Modern music theory avoids ambiguity by using formal definitions, borrowed from mathematics (even if they are used in naive fashion, but even real undergraduate mathematics is taught with similar simplifications, because noone wants to deal with foundations - everything becomes too complicated). If you are interested from where Million got his idea of "order", check any "post-tonal" music theory book (if you want to go deeper in formalism of scales, there are plenty of resources on logic, order, lattices, combinatorics on words and similar related topics in actual mathematical books).

There are more than enough discussion already on tonality, so there is no point in another one.

About "keys" - in any equal temperament we can create notation based on rank-2 temperament (generated collection by 2 coprime intervals). (In unequal temperaments we can again have rank-2 temperaments, but they contain infinite number of pitches, but there is always some equal temperament that approximates any unequal system.)
Notating something in a given key signature doesn't determine the actual scalar content of the musical composition(which can totally chromatic)...

(Note on common practice definitions of keys, tonalities, scales, modes, functions etc: usual definitions are unclear or have limited explanatory power and is not hard to find contradictory definitions in various "famous" theoretical books - but why? Because music was not yet a real science before Forte, Babbitt and company)


----------



## Woodduck

BabyGiraffe said:


> Scales/modes (including medieval modes - which are form of pre-compositional rules, not scales/modes in modern understanding) are just abstractions.
> 
> When you hear a short melody, you can say - it was composed in "x" scale, despite not being ordered (and usually there are also repetitions). (And "tonic" = most stable acoustically/final note - if there are no modulations in the melody)
> 
> Modern music theory avoids ambiguity by using formal definitions, borrowed from mathematics (even if they are used in naive fashion, but even real undergraduate mathematics is taught with similar simplifications, because noone wants to deal with foundations - everything becomes too complicated). If you are interested from where Million got his idea of "order", check any "post-tonal" music theory book (if you want to go deeper in formalism of scales, there are plenty of resources on logic, order, lattices, combinatorics on words and similar related topics in actual mathematical books).
> 
> There are more than enough discussion already on tonality, so there is no point in another one.
> 
> About "keys" - in any equal temperament we can create notation based on rank-2 temperament (generated collection by 2 coprime intervals). (In unequal temperaments we can again have rank-2 temperaments, but they contain infinite number of pitches, but there is always some equal temperament that approximates any unequal system.)
> Notating something in a given key signature doesn't determine the actual scalar content of the musical composition(which can totally chromatic)...
> 
> (Note on common practice definitions of keys, tonalities, scales, modes, functions etc: usual definitions are unclear or have limited explanatory power and is not hard to find contradictory definitions in various "famous" theoretical books - but why? Because music was not yet a real science before Forte, Babbitt and company)


This is looking like a semantic matter. I can't think of a reason to say that a melody was composed "in the D minor scale" (that just seems an odd way of talking about music), but if I did say that it would be a shorthand way of saying "composed in the tonality of D minor (with tonic note D), using the notes of the D minor scale without chromatic alteration." Is there anything else I could mean by it? If that IS the meaning, I'd be inclined to give the full description in order to avoid any ambiguity about what is meant by "scale." The term "scale" does, after all, come from the Latin _scala,_ meaning "stairs" or "ladder," implying sequential steps.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Woodduck:
"The term "scale" does, after all, come from the Latin scala, meaning "stairs" or "ladder," implying sequential steps. "

That is why "pitch class set/collection" is a more useful terminology. 
Any given sequence of pitches is just a specific representation of the set. There are various ways to reduce /find the most compact representation of any set, based on symmetries from abstract algebra - for example Hanson/Forte uses the dihedral group to classify sets in 12 equal temperament, but we can use other groups like cyclical, symmetric or affine and we get different reduced lists of scales - here is number of unique heptatonic scales, according each of these classifications:
Affine - 25; Cyclic- 66; Dihedral - 38; Symmetric- only 7. (In symmetric classification neapolitan major, melodic minor and normal diatonic are the same object - permutations of partition: 1,1,2,2,2,2,2)


----------



## pianozach

EdwardBast said:


> He chose those five scales because he and others like them. Listen to Beato at the peril of your brain cells. He seems to have a talent for butchering basic terms.
> 
> _Mode_ refers to a collection of pitches (as might serve as the basis of a composition, passage, or improvisation) differentiated by _function_, that is, according to which serves as final, reciting tone, tonal center, etc. The same collection can define multiple different modes depending on how functions are assigned. _Scale_ refers to a collection of pitches (such as those defining a mode) considered as a series ascending or descending by conjunct motion. _Mode_ is in the same category as _key_; Alas, scale is often used loosely (sloppily) as a synonym for mode or key, as Beato does.


Yeah, best explanation.

And RICK BEATO?

Please. A 33 minute video to explain the "difference" between scales and modes?

You can play a scale in any mode.

You can play a modal scale.

Were I to demonstrate '*modes*', (one of the seven common modes) I would likely start by playing a scale in that mode, then point out how it differs from the "C white key" (Ionian mode). So, I'd start with a C major scale (Ionian), then play that Ionian scale in several different keys. Then I'd move on to Dorian in D, then in C, then a couple other keys, pointing out which notes in the scale have been altered.

Were I to demonstrate a *scale*, I'd start with C major (Ionian) then play that Ionian scale in several different keys.

Then I'd move on to Dorian in D, then in C, then a couple other keys, pointing out which notes in the scale have been altered.

In *both cases*, when I'd get to Aeolian mode, then I'd branch off to harmonic minor, melodic minor, blues scale etc.

Pretty much the same demonstration.

*The mode is the collection of notes, usually demonstrated by playing a scale in that mode

The scale is the collection of notes in any given mode played sequentially.
*

Just one other thing: _An *unordered scale* is no longer a scale. It's just a series of notes (or pitches) IN a mode in a specific key._

If I play C-Eb-D-F-G (or Do Me Re Fa So) I'm playing a melody in the Aolian mode in C. If I play Do Me Re Fa So (or D-F-E-G-A) in D major, it's still the same melody, still in Aolian mode, but it's now in the key of D.

You can do this with any mode in any key.

But it's no longer a _scale_


----------



## pianozach

BabyGiraffe said:


> . . . When you hear a short melody, you can say - it was composed in "x" scale, despite not being ordered (and usually there are also repetitions). . . .


No, actually, it was composed in "x" key or "x" mode. In the sense you're using it, the term "scale" is vague - it can refer to a scale in any key or mode without further clarification. If I "hear a short melody", and I say it was composed in "x" key or "x" mode, then I have a better sense of what you are trying to convey.

The "x", as you are using it is simply a placeholder for a key and/or mode, rendering the word "Scale" redundant. To wit:

"It was composed in "G" scale" (which infers G major), is the same as saying it was composed in "G". Sure, you can say it was composed using a G major scale, but the same is conveyed by saying it was composed in G major, or even saying it was composed in G.
If "it was composed in "G minor" scale, the same applies: It was composed in G minor.
If "it was composed in "G dorian" scale, the same applies: It was composed in G dorian.

You see . . . the scale is the notes of the key or mode in ascending or descending order of the key or mode starting with the base note of that key or scale.

Of course, what no one has yet pointed out (because it's simply taken for granted) is that a Mode is simply another word for Key (mostly . . . there's an even more minor difference between the two - but you can say that something is in the key of G, G minor, G dorian, etc.).

In effect, the OP is asking *the difference between a scale and a key*.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

pianozach said:


> No, actually, it was composed in "x" key or "x" mode. In the sense you're using it, the term "scale" is vague - it can refer to a scale in any key or mode without further clarification. If I "hear a short melody", and I say it was composed in "x" key or "x" mode, then I have a better sense of what you are trying to convey.
> 
> .


Sometimes it can be hard to determine the exact mode even in a melody. Tymoczko was talking about this in more details (in relation to medieval music, if I remember correctly) in his book (such "modulating modal" melodies are not uncommon also in the folk music of my country - in Eastern Europe). (Let's hope his new one - which will be only on Classical period, I think, will be just as good.)


----------



## EdwardBast

BabyGiraffe said:


> When you hear a short melody, you can say - *it was composed in "x" scale*, despite not being ordered (and usually there are also repetitions). (And "tonic" = most stable acoustically/final note - if there are no modulations in the melody)


Pianozach is right: No one fluent with musical terminology would say this. One would say it was composed in the key of x, or in the major (or minor, Phrygian, whatever) mode on x.


----------



## millionrainbows

A "scale" is in one sense a convention, an exercise, a _mechanism_ used by instrumentalists to practice. In this sense, it has no real musical significance as a substantial melodic entity. Scales are presented as a series of ascending/descending notes only as a convenience or convention. A scale is really just an "index" of notes. In this sense, they are the same as Hanon exercises.

Scales are unordered sets, because, used as the material for composition, they can be chosen for use in any order one chooses. This is unlike a tone row or ordered set.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Pianozach is right: No one fluent with musical terminology would say this. One would say it was composed in the key of x, or in the major (or minor, Phrygian, whatever) mode on x.


Still, a scale is specified by its "starting" note. In the case of C major scale, this is C, which happens to coincide with the proposed key of C. This issue seems to be irrelevant to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

pianozach said:


> The "x", as you are using it is simply a placeholder for a key and/or mode, rendering the word "Scale" redundant.


By convention, a "C major scale" means that the scale starts on the base note of C, which also specifies the key of C. The scale name implies the key, since the first scale note is the key note/tonic.

I will agree with you & Edward _*if *_what you are trying to do is remove the concept of "scale" from having any real substance as a musical entity. In this sense, a scale is only a mechanism, and its presentation as an "order" of notes has no musical significance; if it is only an index of note names.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Yes , I like set theory . A music in the key of C might never mention the tonic . Such could be a moody mode .


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> A "scale" is in one sense a convention, an exercise, a _mechanism_ used by instrumentalists to practice. In this sense, it has no real musical significance as a substantial melodic entity. Scales are presented as a series of ascending/descending notes only as a convenience or convention. A scale is really just an "index" of notes. In this sense, they are the same as Hanon exercises.
> 
> Scales are unordered sets, because, used as the material for composition, they can be chosen for use in any order one chooses. This is unlike a tone row or ordered set.


You must not listen to much Mozart or Haydn. And I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. It is incorrect. There are plenty of examples (particularly in Mozart, Haydn, and their followers), in which scales presented as a series of ascending/descending notes are given musical significance and purpose in a melodic context. There are thousands of examples from their symphonies, concertos, sonatas, etc. It's not that hard to see how these composers have used them musically--they are excellent in quickly defining the tonality of the piece, grabbing the attention of the listener, providing a link between phrases, punctuating the music, building to climaxes, transitioning between ideas, acting as ancillary (to the melody etc.), building momentum, creating smooth bass lines and voice-leading, serve as basis for melody and countermelody, serve as accompaniment figurations, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> You must not listen to much Mozart or Haydn. And I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. It is incorrect. There are plenty of examples (particularly in Mozart, Haydn, and their followers), in which scales presented as a series of ascending/descending notes are given musical significance and purpose in a melodic context.


Then those aren't scales in the strict sense; they are melodic entities.



> There are thousands of examples from their symphonies, concertos, sonatas, etc. It's not that hard to see how these composers have used them musically--they are excellent in quickly defining the tonality of the piece, grabbing the attention of the listener, providing a link between phrases, punctuating the music, building to climaxes, transitioning between ideas, acting as ancillary (to the melody etc.), building momentum, creating smooth bass lines and voice-leading, serve as basis for melody and countermelody, serve as accompaniment figurations, etc. etc. etc.


You're just talking about sequences of notes which happen to ascend or descend using the notes of the diatonic scale. But once they are used outside the context of an index of notes (or scale), they become melodic statements, and arte not scales in the strictest sense.

If you want to call such sequences "scales" you can, but the meaning is different.


----------



## Torkelburger

> Then those aren't scales in the strict sense; they are melodic entities.


They're both. A scale can be used in an actual piece of music and serve many functions, not just melody. It's still a scale. A scale is a scale. You're just trying to be purposefully ambivalent. It's your addiction to mental gymnastics. You're over-complicating things. Just because scales are practiced in technique and exercise books doesn't mean they are automatically excluded from being used in an actual piece of music. That does not follow. But that is what you are assuming.

It's like this-As a brass player, I practice arpeggio exercises all the time. And I play pieces of music which contain extended passages of arpeggio figures as melody or background. This doesn't mean you wouldn't call them arpeggios in the music just because that is what you call them when you practice them as exercises. An arpeggio is an arpeggio whether it's in an exercise book or whether it's in an actual piece of music. It's always an arpeggio.



> You're just talking about sequences of notes which happen to ascend or descend using the notes of the diatonic scale.


The vast majority of what I said does not fall under that context. That seems to be what YOU'RE talking about.



> But once they are used outside the context of an index of notes (or scale), they become melodic statements, and arte not scales in the strictest sense.


They are never used outside of the context of a scale and are both melodic and scalar at the same time.



> If you want to call such sequences "scales" you can, but the meaning is different.


No one is arbitrarily calling them scales and the meaning is not different. A scale is a scale whether it is in an exercise book or in an actual piece of music. You are the one "wanting" to call a scale just an "index of notes".

No theorist would ever say that the notes of beat 2 in measure 2 of the following piece are an "index of notes". That is ridiculous. In the real world, a theorist would describe the notes as "a C Major Scale". Clearly it is a scale in the strict sense, and it is clearly melodic and serves three purposes-it is apart of the 4 measure introduction to bar 5 and it more readily serves as the anacrusis to the motif in bar 3 as well as transitioning the melodic register from lower/heavy to higher/brighter.






Same for this piece by Beethoven. The scales are clearly identifiable and they have an similar purpose to the previous piece (note the G Major scales in the bass on page 2 are clearly accompaniment figures and are not just "sequences of notes which happen to ascend or descend using the notes of the diatonic scale". They are actual full-blown scales.)


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Still, a scale is specified by its "starting" note. In the case of C major scale, this is C, which happens to coincide with the proposed key of C. *This issue seems to be irrelevant to me*.


Of course it's not relevant to you. If you had a grasp of what is relevant to the concepts of scale and mode you wouldn't have started the thread with a video taking thirty three minutes to explain what should require fifty words - and which still manages to mangle the concepts.


----------



## millionrainbows

If a jazz player practices and plays arpeggios, he can't call that 'music' or improvisation. Scales and arpeggios are simply technical exercises.
Of course, the protest here may be due to the deficiencies of diatonic music; if "scales" are not counted as music, then there's not much left to work with in this simple diatonic system.

Like in Mozart's famous C major piano sonata, the "scale-like" runs cannot be simply called "scales," because they occur in a musical context. How can a scale, by itself, be called a 'musical' idea? It can't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

[ 6:48 ]

6m48s


----------



## mikeh375

..................................not relevant.......................


----------



## Torkelburger

> If a jazz player practices and plays arpeggios, he can't call that 'music' or improvisation.


That's completely off topic. You've forgotten what we're talking about. My position is that the same exact notes you play when you practice an arpeggio (like C-E-G-C) doesn't change definitions and is still called an arpeggio when you play the exact same notes in a musical piece, remember? The fact it's embedded in a different musical context doesn't change the fact you are playing the same exact notes C-E-G-C you played as an exercise when the notes were called an "arpeggio". If the notes are an arpeggio during the exercise, the same exact notes are an arpeggio in the piece of music as well. Same with scales. You've given no logical reason for this not to be the case other than your arbitrary whims.

To make the analogy even more ridiculous, would the note C need to be called something else when used in a musical piece? If you practice the note C, does it become something else when performed in a concert?

And aren't you a Cage disciple? If not, you really seem to go out of your way on this site to defend some of his pieces containing either noise or silence as music, yet arpeggios themselves can't be music? Methinks Cage would disagree.



> Scales and arpeggios are simply technical exercises.


No, outlining a chord as an arpeggio is considered to be an "arpeggio" no matter whether it's an exercise, played as a ring tone, played by a music box, used in a jazz solo, or played as an accompaniment in a classical sonata. Try and shoehorn it all you want as only a "technical exercise", but you are wrong.

And one wonders why all the fuss one would go through to practice scales and arpeggios if they don't occur at all in actual music. Strange, that.



> Like in Mozart's famous C major piano sonata, the "scale-like" runs cannot be simply called "scales," because they occur in a musical context.


No one has ever said scale-like runs are called scales *because* they occur in a musical context. Strawman.



> How can a scale, by itself, be called a 'musical' idea? It can't.


Again, I'm surprised a Cage fan would say such a thing. In any case, your wrong. The first melodic phrase of "Joy to the World" is a complete descending major scale, no repeating or returning notes, and is a complete musical idea. There are all sorts of things you could do with a scale to make a complete idea, such as using the complete descending scale as a ground bass in a passacaglia. In any case, it's another strawman as I never said scales are used as complete musical ideas, rather the examples I gave show they can function as a part of a musical context.


----------



## Phil loves classical

A key is a system or cyclical series of 7 notes. A mode is a more definite sequence of 7 notes (ordered by pitch) within the series (ie. a subset) with a starting and end point, where each note is a different degree. The first degree of the major mode is used as the reference for naming a key. A scale is the ascending (and/or descending) sequence of the notes within a mode in pitch. What's so hard about that? (Took me 3 tries)


----------



## philoctetes

So which came first, the scale or the mode?

I refer to Pythagoras to make sense of music theory more than most people because, though I had classic pedagogy on other instruments, I needed Pythagoras to learn the diatonic harmonica. Think of that as having only a major scale to play with - one can't play a C minor scale on a harmonica tuned to C major. But one can learn to play the different modes (scales) that are derived from the C major scale - G Mixolydian, D Dorian, A Aeoilian, E Phrygian, flattening the 7th,3rd, 6th, and 2nd in succession, each with a different pattern of half-notes... just like you can on the white notes of the piano.

Pythagoras illustrated these modes on the circle of fifths, which is exactly what these steps from Ionian to Phrygian are doing, stepping through the circle of fifths. Take any 7 consecutive notes on the wheel and you have a scale which can function in 7 modes, depending on which note you start with. But notice that the wheel of fifths is a completely different way to order these notes than by consecutive pitch, and often makes as much sense as a representation for musical analysis, so I don;t put a lot of emphasis on ordering, as terms like tonic, key, scale and mode are complete in the information sense.

My intuition tells me that very early music started with these minor modes and theorists like pythagoras made sense of them before western music made relics of them, going completely to the notion of a scale and key signatures, and then tempered tuning, etc... modes are are popular again due to their very natural, physical origins, versatility, etc... still, a"mode" can be just a way to describe a key signature relative to any key, not all possible key signatures, but some of them. Melodic minor is not considered a mode, but has a key signature with a flatted 3rd. However Mr Beato seems to refer to modes derived from other non-modal scales, is that right? This is totally uncharted territory for me.

When I play with others, nobody ever says "this song's in E Phrygian", they just say it's E blues or something, and I just have to figure out that it's not one of the other minor modes by ear, tho not as well as Mr Beato can...

When others, smarter than I started talking about "modal harmony" on the Amazon forum, i wanted to learn more about that, but I never got far. In jazz theory they talk about soloing over chords in a sharper mode than the chords are build from, e.g. Lydian melody over Ionian chords, which avoid certain dissonances, and I think this may be the same idea... ?


----------



## Tallisman

millionrainbows said:


> Scales are unordered sets, because, used as the material for composition, they can be chosen for use in any order one chooses. This is unlike a tone row or ordered set.


I think the crux of the confusion here is that you are saying scales are 'unordered'. I know what you mean, because you are thinking D dorian is the 7 pitches of the c major scale ordered in a certain way. However, wouldn't you say that:

C D E F G A B (C 'major scale' or C ionian)

and

D E F G A B C (D dorian)

are in the same order? I would, because the intervallic structure remains the same in each (F is always a half-step away from E, and the same goes for E phrygian, F lydian etc etc) The tonal centre/starting point has changed, though.

If I were to be precise (but totally uninformative and useless) I would say that a scale is a structure/pattern of intervals that exists in the chromatic scale. The major scale, for example, has 7 separate pitches, but the structure extends to the whole range of your instrument. Picking any pitch of that scale and following the intervallic structure _from there_ till the next occurrence of that pitch will give you one of the modes of the scale. Our chromatic scale means that there are 12 possible enharmonic major scales.

In other words, the C Major scale is:

.... C D E-F G A B-C D E-F G A B-C D E-F G A B-C D E-F G A B-C D E.... ad infinitum (i.e until only dogs can hear it, and beyond) (half steps indicated by hyphens)

That scale has an unchanging, predetermined order (e.g. E is always a major third up from C, which is always a minor third up from A, which is always a whole step up from G etc)

Now the modes are just 7 ordered notes of that scale bracketed out, each with a different starting point (d dorian highlighted in red, E phyrgian highlighted in blue, F lydian in green)

.... *C* *D E-F G A B-C* *D* E-F G A B-C D *E-**F G A B-C D E**-F G A B-C D E*....

So each of the modes partakes in the 'order' of the major scale, but just _brackets_ it differently.

On this view, only three 7-note scales we need to worry about in functional harmony: major, harmonic minor, melodic minor (natural minor needn't be mentioned because you can already derive that from the intervallic structure of the major scale and get Aeolian)


----------



## Tallisman

Despite my earlier answer, I think we ought to remind ourselves of the obvious fact that music exists outside of the theoretical framework that is used to describe it. Modes and scales are not things in the same way that trees and badgers are things. They are words whose meaning is essentially a matter of convention and context. If you have a conception of scales and modes that allows you to improvise fluently, then as far as I'm concerned you know more about scales and modes than me even if you haven't worked out some vacuous definition. Music (or even music theory for that matter) isn't analytic philosophy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> ...The first melodic phrase of "Joy to the World" is a complete descending major scale, no repeating or returning notes, and is a complete musical idea. There are all sorts of things you could do with a scale to make a complete idea, such as using the complete descending scale as a ground bass in a passacaglia.


That's not a consistent example; "Joy to the World" has a rhythmic identity as well, which makes it into a real musical idea.

The problem seems to be, you refuse to see a scale in abstract form, away from context, as an "index of notes."

Your precious Mozart and Haydn contain so many scale-like runs and arpeggiated figures that you are really just defending them & their music, rather than succumbing to a modernist "set theory" view of a major scale as simply an unordered set.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> That's not a consistent example; "Joy to the World" has a rhythmic identity as well, which makes it into a real musical idea.
> 
> The problem seems to be, you refuse to *see a scale in abstract form, away from context, as an "index of notes.*"
> 
> Your precious Mozart and Haydn contain so many scale-like runs and arpeggiated figures that you are really just defending them & their music,* rather than succumbing to a modernist "set theory" view of a major scale as simply an unordered set.*


But MR, you know that a (major/minor) scale also contains inherent functionality - a hierarchy (order). One can't really divorce a scale from this property and consider it a totally "unordered index of notes" if it is to retain its functionality and identity (ignoring weightless pandiatonicism and any other manipulation for now). Tonics, dominants, mediants etc. can be altered via context to change their function within a scale of course, but only via the manipulation of the rules that the order dictates in the first place. Saying it is an unordered set strips away its defining properties. The maj/min scales exists in part for, and because of, their harmonic implications which is generated by their note order.

Scalic and arpeggiated thought is central during composition and is often responsible for instigating ideas too, whether that be a foreground, middle or background one. They can be considered a musical idea in this regard imv. One can think of arpeggios being played by strings on multiple stops, or scalic runs as florid, showy moments for a soloist in a concerto. Scalic based themes/ideas/riffs, such as the Dance Russe from Petrouchka, or in Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra are all calculated or factored in at the composing stage because of and for their scalic/arpeggio like properties...it goes way beyond grades 1-8 practice.


----------



## philoctetes

Tallisman said:


> Despite my earlier answer, I think we ought to remind ourselves of the obvious fact that music exists outside of the theoretical framework that is used to describe it. Modes and scales are not things in the same way that trees and badgers are things. They are words whose meaning is essentially a matter of convention and context. If you have a conception of scales and modes that allows you to improvise fluently, then as far as I'm concerned you know more about scales and modes than me even if you haven't worked out some vacuous definition. Music (or even music theory for that matter) isn't analytic philosophy.


Yes all this is just attempting to organize our understanding of acoustical physics for artistic purposes. It's a little bit like how basic chemistry is taught, with a lot of symbolism, recipes, and rules that only scratch the surface of what's going on, but it gets the "production" job done efficiently...

Anybody can see how music is naturally diverse with many successful approaches, but some of the more traditionally academic would attempt to teach birds how to sing better, their way...


----------



## Torkelburger

> That's not a consistent example; "Joy to the World" has a rhythmic identity as well, which makes it into a real musical idea.


It's still a scale. In order for it to be heard in the real world it has to have some kind of rhythm of some sort. Your problem is that you think it must only exist as an abstraction.



> The problem seems to be, you refuse to see a scale in abstract form, away from context, as an "index of notes."


That's your definition.



> Your precious Mozart and Haydn contain so many scale-like runs and arpeggiated figures that you are really just defending them & their music, rather than succumbing to a modernist "set theory" view of a major scale as simply an unordered set.


Again, that's your definition. Wikipedia makes no mention of this at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_(music)
It actually uses the word "ordered" three times in the first paragraph to describe the notes. I'd bet anything most competent and reliable music dictionaries are similar in content.

Modernist set theory is not the final word on anything, certainly scales. In modernist set theory there is no such thing as a C Major chord in first inversion or second inversion. There is only the abstraction [0,4,7]. Doesn't mean we toss out the terms "C Major Triad" or "First Inversion" or "Second Inversion" when discussing music theory. C Major Triads and chord inversions both exist as abstractions, exercises, and as actual musical realities in musical contexts.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Yes , I like set theory . A music in the key of C might never mention the tonic . Such could be a moody mode .


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> ...Modernist set theory is not the final word on anything, certainly scales. In modernist set theory there is no such thing as a C Major chord in first inversion or second inversion. There is only the abstraction [0,4,7]. Doesn't mean we toss out the terms "C Major Triad" or "First Inversion" or "Second Inversion" when discussing music theory. C Major Triads and chord inversions both exist as abstractions, exercises, and as actual musical realities in musical contexts.


Oh, so you want to talk about "inversion?"

The only reason inversions exist in tonal music is because of the tonal hierarchy, and relation to "1" as the tonic note, NOT because of note order.

For example: C (1st note) up to G (5th note) is harmonically equivalent to C (1st note) down to G ("minus 6"). Not only are the intervals different (the first is a fifth up, the second is a 4th down). The reason tonal inversion works is because the note-identity is preserved: G is G in relation to C, regardless if it's a fifth up or a fourth down.

Thus, the idea of tonal inversion is revealed to be an abstraction of sorts, as C *up* to G (7 semitones) is equivalent to C *down* to G (5 semitones). This makes no sense mathematically in terms of simple addition. It works because_ tonality preserves note identity (relation, ratio) rather than quantity. A G is a G.
_
Your "ordered scales" are *literal* if they are thought of as "ordered entities." This idea of "literal scales" does not work in tonality; pitches of the scale must be conceived as "identities" or _pitch classes_ rather than "placeholders" in an arbitrary octave/scale form.

The short version is: tonal chord inversion and harmonic function work in tonality NOT because of order (C is 1, G is 5, etc.) but because of RELATION to a key note (C-G is 2:3, C-F is 3:4).

The notion of an "ordered scale" in tonality is a ridiculous, unworkable notion. I've just proven that "tonal inversion" will not work within this idea. You apparently can't prove anything to the contrary; you seem to be clinging to an idea with no proof to back it up.

Or worse: you hedge your argument by saying "they are both abstractions and literal ordered entities." These are two different things, and are incompatible. One "extinguishes" the other.

During the early eighteenth century, Jean-Phillipe Rameau articulated the modern notion of a chord, classifying basic musical objects based on their pitch-class content _rather than their order _or registral arrangement. Rameau implicitly suggested that three basic operations preserve the "chordal" or "harmonic" identity of a musical object: octave shifts, permutation (or reordering), and cardinality change (or note duplication). For instance, one can transform (C4, E4 G4) by reordering its notes to produce (E4, G4, C4), transposing the second note up an octave to produce (C4, E5, G4), or duplicating the third note to produce (C4, E4, G4,G4) - all without changing its right to be called a "C major chord." Furthermore, these transformations can be combined to produce an endless collection of objects, all representing the same chord: (E4, G4, C5), (G3, G4, C5, E4), (E2, G3, C4, E4, E5), and so on. To be a C major chord is simply to belong to this equivalency class - or in other words, to contain all and only the three pitch-classes C, E, and G. 
_
We can therefore represent the C major chord as the unordered set of pitch classes {C, E, G}._ -Tymoczko, p. 36. Obviously, the same thing applies to scales and arpeggios; they are unordered sets. Otherwise, tonality and inversion are not possible.

Torkelberger seems to be thinking in terms of literal "figured bass" constructs, in which no "pitch class" distinctions are recognized; only concrete constructs.

My way of thinking not only is compatible with the ideas in modern set theory, but also have historic precedence in the ideas of Rameau.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The only reason inversions exist in tonal music is because of the tonal hierarchy, and relation to "1" as the tonic note, NOT because of note order.
> 
> For example: C (1st note) up to G (5th note) is harmonically equivalent to C (1st note) down to G ("minus 6"). Not only are the intervals different (the first is a fifth up, the second is a 4th down). The reason tonal inversion works is because the note-identity is preserved: G is G in relation to C, regardless if it's a fifth up or a fourth down.
> 
> Thus, the idea of tonal inversion is revealed to be an abstraction of sorts, as C up to G (7 semitones) is equivalent to C down to G (5 semitones). This makes no sense mathematically in terms of simple addition. It works because tonality preserves note identity (relation, ratio) rather than quantity. A G is a G.The short version is:


A scale is not a neutral, meaningless collection of pitches serving as an "index." A scale is a tonal entity, ordered in such a way as to tell us what the tonality is. Any particular scale is a particular ordered set of notes possessing a tonic note. It's only with reference to note order that we know which note of the "set" is the tonic: the tonic is the first note in the order, the note on which the scale begins. After that, it's the successive intervals of the scale which define the tonality more fully and give us a name for the scale: major, minor, octatonic, et al. Each note of the scale exists in a specific intervallic relationship to the tonic and to all other notes.

If we change the order in one respect - the starting note - but retain it in all others, we no longer have the same scale; we have a different scale with a different tonic. The fact that we can find a G both above C and below it is interesting for harmonic theory but irrelevant to scales; it doesn't change the fact that C is the first note of a C scale, but merely shows that the C scale can proceed both upward and downward - always by specific intervals. We can't begin on G and have a C scale; GABCDEF is not a C scale, though we might hear it, in a musical context, as abstracted from a C scale and belonging to the tonality of C. CDEFGAB, as a scale, is an ordered set. Order the set differently and we have either a different scale or just a collection of pitches. "Unorder" the set completely and we have a meaningless collection of pitches. Why would anyone call an unordered set of pitches a "scale"? It's an abuse of language, at the very least.



> tonal chord inversion and harmonic function work in tonality NOT because of order (C is 1, G is 5, etc.) but because of RELATION to a key note (C-G is 2:3, C-F is 3:4). The notion of an "ordered scale" in tonality is a ridiculous, unworkable notion. I've just proven that "tonal inversion" will not work within this idea.


No one has placed tonal inversion "within the idea" of an ordered scale. No one has said that tonality works because scales are ordered, rather that scales derive their tonal identity from their order.



> During the early eighteenth century, Jean-Phillipe Rameau articulated the modern notion of a chord, classifying basic musical objects based on their pitch-class content _rather than their order _or registral arrangement. Rameau implicitly suggested that three basic operations preserve the "chordal" or "harmonic" identity of a musical object: octave shifts, permutation (or reordering), and cardinality change (or note duplication). For instance, one can transform (C4, E4 G4) by reordering its notes to produce (E4, G4, C4), transposing the second note up an octave to produce (C4, E5, G4), or duplicating the third note to produce (C4, E4, G4,G4) - all without changing its right to be called a "C major chord." Furthermore, these transformations can be combined to produce an endless collection of objects, all representing the same chord: (E4, G4, C5), (G3, G4, C5, E4), (E2, G3, C4, E4, E5), and so on. To be a C major chord is simply to belong to this equivalency class - or in other words, to contain all and only the three pitch-classes C, E, and G.
> _
> We can therefore represent the C major chord as the unordered set of pitch classes {C, E, G}._ -Tymoczko, p. 36. *Obviously, the same thing applies to scales and arpeggios*; they are unordered sets. Otherwise, tonality and inversion are not possible.


The same thing does NOT apply. Chords, and the arpeggios based on them, are not like scales. There are inversions of C major chords and arpeggios, equally recognizable as C major, in which any note of the chord may be above or below any other, in any order and any number of doublings. The only way to "invert" a C major scale is to play it backwards, but that doesn't violate the order of the scale, since scales by their nature can ascend or descend. What goes up must come down.



> My way of thinking not only is compatible with the ideas in modern set theory, but also have historic precedence in the ideas of Rameau.


Does Rameau speak of inverting scales? I wouldn't think so.

The problem I have with your idea of "unordered scale" is not merely that it contradicts the common sense meanings (not to mention the etymology) of the concept "scale," but that I see no reason for doing so. Of what use is this "set theory" definition? Why talk of a scale when nobody is playing, hearing, or thinking of a scale?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The essential anarchy of set theory includes everything . Holistic is good for everybody ; the traditional , the progressive ,
the ornery .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> A scale is a tonal entity, ordered in such a way as to tell us what the tonality is.


Scales are conventionally presented in a (usually) ascending order, and the collection of notes indicates tonality (not the order). The presented order has no harmonic significance. It's just an index, as a book's index would be in alphabetical order.

Is a scale a tonal entity? Not literally; the pitch register is not literal; this is an index of all pitch classes (all C's, all D's, etc.) When composing, the notes can be in any register or order one chooses.



> Any particular scale is a particular ordered set of notes possessing a tonic note. It's only with reference to note order that we know which note of the "set" is the tonic: the tonic is the first note in the order, the note on which the scale begins.


Scales are traditionally presented with the keynote at the beginning. The remaining order of the entire scale is presented in ascending order as a convenience, like the index of a book is in alphabetical order.



> After that, it's the successive intervals of the scale which define the tonality more fully and give us a name for the scale: major, minor, octatonic, et al. Each note of the scale exists in a specific intervallic relationship to the tonic and to all other notes.


 I won't argue with that.



> If we change the order in one respect - the starting note - but retain it in all others, we no longer have the same scale; we have a different scale with a different tonic.


That is obvious, because the first note is the indication of the keynote.



> The fact that we can find a G both above C and below it is interesting for harmonic theory but irrelevant to scales; it doesn't change the fact that C is the first note of a C scale, but merely shows that the C scale can proceed both upward and downward - always by specific intervals.


Yes, but _your_ point is that order determines tonality (and in the key of C, this indicates a direction, such as C-D-E-F-G, not C-B-A-G). Tonality is determined by relation (function) to the tonic, as a note identity. Note identity has nothing to do with order, but as a relation (interval). Do you not understand this? In fact, "order" in this sense is an idea you seem to be borrowing from set theory.



> We can't begin on G and have a C scale; GABCDEF is not a C scale, though we might hear it, in a musical context, as abstracted from a C scale and belonging to the tonality of C.


I agree; in tonality, scales should be presented starting with the keynote.



> CDEFGAB, as a scale, is an ordered set. Order the set differently and we have either a different scale or just a collection of pitches.


Now you're conflating "scale" with "set." Get your terms straight.

Scales should be presented as keynote, followed by the other scale notes. If you want to consider the notes as an ordered or unordered set, then yes, you can have a different set.



> "Unorder" the set completely and we have a meaningless collection of pitches.


It wouldn't be a scale any more; it would be an unordered set.



> Why would anyone call an unordered set of pitches a "scale"? It's an abuse of language, at the very least.


Who called an unordered set of pitches a "scale"? Not me. In my post #47, I already said that "The notion of an "ordered scale" in tonality is a ridiculous, unworkable notion." This would obviously include the notion of an "unordered scale" which is also ridiculous.



> No one has placed tonal inversion "within the idea" of an ordered scale. No one has said that tonality works because scales are ordered, rather that scales derive their tonal identity from their order.


That's a mistaken notion; scales do not derive their tonal identity from their order, but from their relationship to a keynote. This is expressed in intervals, not in order-numbers.



> Chords, and the arpeggios based on them, are not like scales. There are inversions of C major chords and arpeggios, equally recognizable as C major, in which any note of the chord may be above or below any other, in any order and any number of doublings. The only way to "invert" a C major scale is to play it backwards, but that doesn't violate the order of the scale, since scales by their nature can ascend or descend. What goes up must come down.


Now you're conflating the idea of "order" with "harmonic content."



> Does Rameau speak of inverting scales? I wouldn't think so.


It's well-known that our idea of tonal chord inversion is derived from Rameau's ideas, not Bach's. This was a major point of contention between them, since Bach preferred the figured-bass method. This would prove unwieldy in the later days of harmonic analysis.



> The problem I have with your idea of "unordered scale" is not merely that it contradicts the common sense meanings (not to mention the etymology) of the concept "scale," but that I see no reason for doing so.


I never proposed the notion of an "unordered scale." I simply said "a scale is an unordered set."

What are you referring to? *I think what's confusing you is that set theory can include the idea of an unordered set, which functions like an "unordered scale," though no such entity exists, since the notion of scales was developed before set theory.*



> Of what use is this "set theory" definition? Why talk of a scale when nobody is playing, hearing, or thinking of a scale?


Well, your mistake is in seeing a scale as "ordered," when this is only a convention of presentation. Harmonically, a scale is just like an unordered set, minus the tonal functions assigned. However, the tonal functions are derived from relations to a keynote, not from presented index-like order.

You seem to think I'm conflating scales with sets, which I am not; you are, and have created a straw man for these purposes. You still need to reconcile the ideas of order and relation and see how harmonic function is based on relation, not order. There is no "order" which determines tonal harmonic conception in this sense.

"Order" is for tone-rows, not scales. And Trix are for kids.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

When the mode is pentatonic minor . which tone is the root ?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Scales are conventionally presented in a (usually) ascending order, and *the collection of notes indicates tonality (not the order)*. The presented order has no harmonic significance.


A "collection of notes" could belong to a number of scales and modes. Unless we know which scale they belong to - which is equivalent to knowing what note it starts on and what the intervals are between scale steps - a collection can't specify a tonality.



> *Is a scale a tonal entity? Not literally*; the pitch register is not literal; this is an index of all pitch classes (all C's, all D's, etc.) *When composing, the notes can be in any register or order one chooses.*


Why "literally"? A scale is a "tonal entity" in that it has a tonal center: scale step #1.

It's rather obvious that when we're composing, we can order notes however we wish! A composer writing a passage in C major isn't thinking about the C major scale and what order he's putting the notes in. Composition isn't concerned with the definition of "scale." But this thread is.



> That is obvious, because the *first note is the indication of the keynote*.


Yes, the FIRST NOTE. But you said, above, "the collection of notes indicates tonality (not the order). The presented order has no harmonic significance." So the FIRST note "is the indication of the keynote" but "the presented order has no harmonic significance"? The word "firsT" is an expression of order. Try putting the note F first in the "collection of notes" that make up a C major scale and see what happens to your harmonic significance.



> I agree; in tonality, scales should be presented starting with the keynote.


Scales are ALWAYS presented starting with the keynote. Otherwise they're a different scale.



> It wouldn't be a scale any more; it would be an unordered set.


Now wait just a goldurned minute! In post #11, you said, "a scale is not a 'sequence' of notes; it's only presented that way for clarity. It's more like an 'index' of notes, with no order. *It's an unordered set.* So explain to me how it is that a scale is an unordered set, but an unordered set "wouldn't be a scale any more"?



> Who called an unordered set of pitches a "scale"? Not me.


Yes, you. In post #11.



> scales do not derive their tonal identity from their order, but from their relationship to a keynote.


That keynote is FIRST IN ORDER. Without specifying that, we can't determine what harmonic relationships are implicit or possible.



> Without the order there is no keynote.


Exactly.



> I think what's confusing you is that set theory can include the idea of an unordered set, which functions like an "unordered scale," though no such entity exists, since the notion of scales was developed before set theory.


I'm not confused.



> You seem to think I'm conflating scales with sets, which I am not; you are, and have created a straw man for these purposes.


No, I've been perfectly clear. A scale consists of a set of notes set forth in sequence The first note in the sequence - the first note IN ORDER (ordinal number one) - is the tonal center of that scale, and identifies its tonality and, in the modern sense of the term, its mode (major, minor, Dorian, Phrygian, octatonic, pentatonic, whatever).



> You still need to reconcile the ideas of order and relation and see how harmonic function is based on relation, not order.


I never said that harmonic function isn't based on relation, although I'll say it now. Harmonic function and tonal relation are two ways of saying the same thing; one isn't "based on" the other.

But we're talking about scales. What IS a scale? How about this:

A scale is a diagram of pitches representing the characteristics of a certain kind of music. The form of the diagram is not arbitrary. It is purposeful and efficient. It indicates by its starting note the tonal center of the sort of music it represents, and by its intervallic structure other qualities the music may possess. Stepwise motion seems natural to music-making throughout the world, and movement between and through particular scale steps is in particular musics invested with particular expressive values. Wikipedia notes:

"Scales may...be described by their constituent intervals, such as being hemitonic, cohemitonic, or having imperfections. *Many music theorists concur that the constituent intervals of a scale have a large role in the cognitive perception of its sonority, or tonal character.*

"*The number of the notes that make up a scale as well as the quality of the intervals between successive notes of the scale help to give the music of a culture area its peculiar sound quality.* The pitch distances or intervals among the notes of a scale tell us more about the sound of the music than does the mere number of tones."

Your "unordered set," or "index" of notes, does not have the musical characteristics of a scale, characteristic derived from, and indicative of, the kind of music the scale represents.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

C Eb F G Bb . And there are no other tones in this set . How many scales can be made from it ? Music made from any one of these scales may begin with and resolve gracefully to any one chosen tone of the set . Jah Roots . One can begin referenced to one scale and traverse all the scales to resolve in another scale of the five tones (which can be defined by various interval ). Scales are a sub-set .


----------



## hammeredklavier

[ 23:15 ]

23m15s





[ 1:08 ]

1m8s


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> A "collection of notes" could belong to a number of scales and modes. Unless we know which scale they belong to - which is equivalent to knowing what note it starts on and what the intervals are between scale steps - a collection can't specify a tonality.


That's why scales are as a convention presented as an index of notes, with the key note at the first, and is named "C major," etc.



> Why "literally"? A scale is a "tonal entity" in that it has a tonal center: scale step #1.


Is a scale a tonal entity? Not literally; the *pitch register* is not literal; this is an index of all pitch classes (all C's, all D's, etc.) When composing, the notes can be in any register or order one chooses. Scale notes are "pitch classes" (all C's, all D's, etc.), not just the notes presented in that register. This idea of an "entity" is a holdover from Bach's figured bass thinking.



> It's rather obvious that when we're composing, we can order notes however we wish! A composer writing a passage in C major isn't thinking about the C major scale and what order he's putting the notes in. Composition isn't concerned with the definition of "scale." But this thread is.


Then you appear to agree that scales have no "order" which is musically significant, but is only an index, because as you said "when we're composing, we can order notes however we wish!"



> Yes, the FIRST NOTE. But you said, above, "the collection of notes indicates tonality (not the order). The presented order has no harmonic significance." So the FIRST note "is the indication of the keynote" but "the presented order has no harmonic significance"? The word "firsT" is an expression of order. Try putting the note F first in the "collection of notes" that make up a C major scale and see what happens to your harmonic significance.


That's obvious, but scales are always presented with FIRST NOTE as the keynote. This "order" has no significance except as an indicator.



> Scales are ALWAYS presented starting with the keynote. Otherwise they're a different scale.


I won't argue with that.



> Now wait just a goldurned minute! In post #11, you said, "a scale is not a 'sequence' of notes; it's only presented that way for clarity. It's more like an 'index' of notes, with no order. *It's an unordered set.* So explain to me how it is that a scale is an unordered set, but an unordered set "wouldn't be a scale any more"?


"how it is that a scale is an unordered set?" Because when composing, you can use notes in any order, and the 'order' in which a scale is presented has no musical significance; it is only an index order, like alphabetical order.

How is it that an unordered set "wouldn't be a scale any more"? 
Because scales were developed _before_ set theory. 
The idea of a scale cannot include "an unordered set" (it can only resemble it), 
...but set theory CAN include a the notes of a C major scale as an unordered set. Of course, there is no "tonality" implicit in an unordered set, and none of its notes indicate a tonality.
Harmonically, though, the two are equivalent if subjected to an interval vector analysis. This is what Tikoo Tuba is getting at. Smart boy!



> That keynote is FIRST IN ORDER. Without specifying that, we can't determine what harmonic relationships are implicit or possible.


The first note presented indicates the keynote, but other harmonic relationships in the scale are not determined by order, but by intervallic relation to the keynote.



> No, I've been perfectly clear. A scale consists of a set of notes set forth in sequence The first note in the sequence - the first note IN ORDER (ordinal number one) - is the tonal center of that scale, and identifies its tonality and, in the modern sense of the term, its mode (major, minor, Dorian, Phrygian, octatonic, pentatonic, whatever).


No, the mode or major/minor quality of the scale must be determined by its note content and the inner relationships between notes, not the first note.



> I never said that harmonic function isn't based on relation, although I'll say it now. Harmonic function and tonal relation are two ways of saying the same thing; one isn't "based on" the other.


But neither harmonic function or intervallic relation is based on order within a scale. Harmonic function must be expressed as a ratio (interval), not a number in an order.



> A scale is a diagram of pitches representing the characteristics of a certain kind of music. The form of the diagram is not arbitrary. It is purposeful and efficient. It indicates by its starting note the tonal center of the sort of music it represents, and by its intervallic structure other qualities the music may possess. Stepwise motion seems natural to music-making throughout the world, and movement between and through particular scale steps is in particular musics invested with particular expressive values. Wikipedia notes:
> 
> "Scales may...be described by their constituent intervals, such as being hemitonic, cohemitonic, or having imperfections. *Many music theorists concur that the constituent intervals of a scale have a large role in the cognitive perception of its sonority, or tonal character.*
> 
> "*The number of the notes that make up a scale as well as the quality of the intervals between successive notes of the scale help to give the music of a culture area its peculiar sound quality.* The pitch distances or intervals among the notes of a scale tell us more about the sound of the music than does the mere number of tones."


"Interval" is not only relation of notes to each other, but more crucially, the relation of notes to tonic.



> Your "unordered set," or "index" of notes, does not have the musical characteristics of a scale, characteristic derived from, and indicative of, the kind of music the scale represents.


I never claimed that an unordered set was a scale. I DID say that a scale was an "index" of notes whose order was harmonically insignificant. In this sense, a scale can be said to be "unordered."

The short version: in a C major scale, if "G" is harmonically a 2:3 fifth, it is because of its relation to the keynote "C", not because it is the fifth note of the scale. 
Otherwise, in a whole tone scale C-D-E F#-G#-A#, G# would be a "fifth" because it is note #5 of the scale.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Well , thanks for your inspiration . I have practical interests in making a harmonic consort of 5-hole flutes and
of where to drill the holes . No thanks for your no response , but perhaps you are happy to be indulgent articulators .
Bye .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That's why scales are *as a convention* presented as an index of notes, with the key note at the first, and is named "C major," etc.


Scales are not "presented" as they are by "convention." Scales HAVE TO BE presented as they are - as a sequence of notes starting with a keynote - because that is what a scale IS. There is no other way to present it. Change the order of notes and you simply DO NOT HAVE THE SAME SCALE, or don't have a scale at all.



> Is a scale a tonal entity? Not literally; the *pitch register* is not literal; this is *an index of all pitch classes *(all C's, all D's, etc.) When composing, the notes can be in any register or order one chooses. *Scale notes are "pitch classes"* (all C's, all D's, etc.), not just the notes presented in that register. This idea of an "entity" is a holdover from Bach's figured bass thinking.


The fact that the notes of a scale refer to pitch classes doesn't change its nature AS A SCALE. Imagine middle C, followed by notes in disjunct octaves that happen to belong to the pitch classes DEFGAB. That would not constitute a scale; it would be a sort of melody, and would create a perceptual impression entirely different from that of a scale (and, not incidentally, a less tonally comprehensible one, since you wouldn't have the sense of one note leading to, or otherwise affecting, another).



> Then you appear to agree that scales have no "order" which is musically significant, but is only an index, because as you said "when we're composing, we can order notes however we wish!"


Not at all. I made a distinction (perhaps too implicitly for you to catch) between a musical composition and a scale. It's absurd to think that a composer's freedom to put notes together however he wishes somehow invalidates the identity, necessity, and function of scales. A scale is abstracted from music in order to tell us certain things about music, and its form, including its specific order, is what tells us those things. The order of a scale is indeed musically significant. See my next answer.



> The first note presented indicates the keynote, but *other harmonic relationships in the scale are not determined by order, but by intervallic relation to the keynote*...scales are always presented with FIRST NOTE as the keynote. *This "order" has no significance except as an indicator.*


Not so. First, indication of tonality is not insignificant. Second - and this is important - scales are abstracted from music as practiced, and they are indicative of music's character. As one conspicuous example, the leading tone B is naturally placed adjacent to the tonic note C in the C scale, just as it is in musical practice. We could, on your model of relating scale tones only to the tonal center and not to each other, break the scalar sequence and use some other octave's iteration of the pitch class B, but it would not have the same force as the leading tone within the scale. Scales are designed as they are, not merely because they're simple and convenient and present an elegant graphic shape, but because they best represent the way music is designed and felt. The force tones exert upon each other is not derived solely from their common relationship to a tonic, but also from their relationships to each other, and there is a peculiar power in proximity. Nothing is more natural in music than movement between adjacent tones; musics which are basically melodic and haven't developed a harmonic system show this to be true, which is why scales in all cultures are defined and presented as sequences of tones. NO OTHER ARRANGEMENT OF PITCH CLASSES CAN FULFILL THE MUSICAL FUNCTIONS OF A SCALE.



> Of course, there is no "tonality" implicit in an unordered set, and none of its notes indicate a tonality.


True.



> Harmonically, though, the two are equivalent if subjected to an *interval vector analysis*.


That's just a fancy way of saying the thing you keep saying. No such analysis is need to understand what a scale is.



> *"Interval" is not only relation of notes to each other, but more crucially, the relation of notes to tonic.* But neither harmonic function or intervallic relation is based on order within a scale. Harmonic function must be expressed as a ratio (interval), not a number in an order.


Scales are more than indicators of harmonic function. Since harmony, in the modern Western sense, is not the only determinant of form and meaning in music, there is no reason to think that it should be the main function of a scale to represent a harmonic system. As a purely melodic entity, a scale can do this only to the extent of representing a basic tonality. To represent harmony, you need - well, harmony! Scales existed before harmonic music did, and so it makes no sense to chastise them for failing to elucidate the relation of all notes to the keynote - and it makes no sense to redefine "scale" in order to try to make them do it. "Unordered index of pitch classes" may be a useful idea in understanding music, but scales have never been unordered or had anything to say about pitch classes. Perhaps we need a new term for your index. A scale is what it has always been, in all cultures and all times, and in music having nothing to do with the Western harmonic system.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Scales are not "presented" as they are by "convention." Scales HAVE TO BE presented as they are - as a sequence of notes starting with a keynote - because that is what a scale IS.


This explains nothing, and is only an affirmation of this idea of "scale" as a musical entity, something more than an index of notes.



> The fact that the notes of a scale refer to pitch classes doesn't change its nature AS A SCALE.


This again says nothing, explains nothing.



> Imagine middle C, followed by notes in disjunct octaves that happen to belong to the pitch classes DEFGAB. That would not constitute a scale; it would be a sort of melody, and would create a perceptual impression entirely different from that of a scale (and, not incidentally, a less tonally comprehensible one, since you wouldn't have the sense of one note leading to, or otherwise affecting, another).


This says that a scale is perceived as a musical entity. It's not, it's an index. It could just as well be spelled with letter names: CDEFGAB.



> A scale is abstracted from music in order to tell us certain things about music, and its form, including its specific order, is what tells us those things. The order of a scale is indeed musically significant.


Its "specific order" is like an alphabetized index. The order of a scale is not musically significant except as a convenience.



> We could, on your model of relating scale tones only to the tonal center and not to each other, break the scalar sequence and use some other octave's iteration of the pitch class B, but it would not have the same force as the leading tone within the scale.


I never proposed such a ridiculous idea. I am all in favor of scales being presented as they are.



> Scales are designed as they are, not merely because they're simple and convenient and present an elegant graphic shape, but because they best represent the way music is designed and felt. The force tones exert upon each other is not derived solely from their common relationship to a tonic, but also from their relationships to each other, and there is a peculiar power in proximity.


Those musical analogies may be true, but you are reading-in meanings to what is a simple index of notes and nothing more.



> Nothing is more natural in music than movement between adjacent tones; musics which are basically melodic and haven't developed a harmonic system show this to be true, which is why scales in all cultures are defined and presented as sequences of tones. NO OTHER ARRANGEMENT OF PITCH CLASSES CAN FULFILL THE MUSICAL FUNCTIONS OF A SCALE.


Yes, scales are a good way to present the notes of a musical system, especially if it's tonal.



> Since harmony, in the modern Western sense, is not the only determinant of form and meaning in music, there is no reason to think that it should be the main function of a scale to represent a harmonic system. As a purely melodic entity, a scale can do this only to the extent of representing a basic tonality.


I never said that a scale's purpose was to represent a harmonic system.



> To represent harmony, you need - well, harmony! Scales existed before harmonic music did, and so it makes no sense to *chastise them* for failing to elucidate the relation of all notes to the keynote...


I didn't say that, or chastise scales. I simply said 'the order of notes in a scale does not determine its tonality.'



> ...and it makes no sense to redefine "scale" in order to try to make them do it.


I'm not redefining "scale." I'm simply placing limits on what you seem to think they are, which is exagerrated and full of metaphors.



> "Unordered index of pitch classes" may be a useful idea in understanding music, but scales have never been unordered or had anything to say about pitch classes.


I didn't say a scale was "unordered index of pitch classes." I simply said that the order had no significance in determining tonality, and should be seen as a way of presenting an alphabetized "index" of notes, nothing more.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^There's not a single new thought in this post. In fact, you said everything you had to say on page one. Why do I bother thinking about any subject you raise, when all you want is to bludgeon everyone into agreeing with whatever theory you're presently obsessed with? I'm thinking EdwardBast has the right idea for dealing with you. Strike and get out.

But one more thought. In post #19, I said, 'The term "scale" does, after all, come from the Latin scala, meaning "stairs" or "ladder," implying sequential steps.' To this BabyGiraffe replied, 'That is why "pitch class set/collection" is a more useful terminology.' I agree. "Scale" has always meant a set of notes ordered sequentially by pitch. An "index" of notes (a bad metaphor, by the way) need not be a scale, and calling it one, or claiming that as the defining feature of a scale, is an abuse of language. 

I will now leave you to talk to yourself and all the set theory fans banging at the door.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ^^^There's not a single new thought in this post.


 That's not due to me. I'm just replying to the same things you keep reiterating, and making sure of what I did and did not say.



> In fact, you said everything you had to say on page one. Why do I bother thinking about any subject you raise, when all you want is to bludgeon everyone into agreeing with whatever theory you're presently obsessed with? I'm thinking EdwardBast has the right idea for dealing with you. Strike and get out.


Irrelevant, off-subject. You seem to be backsliding into ad-hominems again.

It seems to me my statements have been rather innocuous. You seem to want to borrow the idea of "order" from set theory, and in the tonal context of scales, which I accept, it has no relevance.



> But one more thought. In post #19, I said, 'The term "scale" does, after all, come from the Latin scala, meaning "stairs" or "ladder," implying sequential steps.' To this BabyGiraffe replied, 'That is why "pitch class set/collection" is a more useful terminology.' I agree. "Scale" has always meant a set of notes ordered sequentially by pitch. An "index" of notes (a bad metaphor, by the way) need not be a scale, and calling it one, or claiming that as the defining feature of a scale, is an abuse of language.


All I'm saying is that there is no musical significance to the order that scales are presented in; it's only an "alphabetical" order, for convenience. The numbers are not place-holders for certain harmonic functions or anything like that.

If we know all the notes in the scale, all we need is the indicator of what pitch is the key note. No "order" is necessary, except as a convenience; the order is not literal, and the register is not literal; the notes are considered as pitch-classes, all C's, all D's, etc.

From this we can see that a scale is in many ways an abstraction, not a musical construct.



> I will now leave you to talk to yourself and all the set theory fans banging at the door.


Have a nice day.


----------



## pianozach

Tikoo Tuba said:


> When the mode is pentatonic minor . which tone is the root ?





Tikoo Tuba said:


> C Eb F G Bb . And there are no other tones in this set . How many scales can be made from it ? Music made from any one of these scales may begin with and resolve gracefully to any one chosen tone of the set . Jah Roots . One can begin referenced to one scale and traverse all the scales to resolve in another scale of the five tones (which can be defined by various interval ). Scales are a sub-set .





Tikoo Tuba said:


> Well , thanks for your inspiration . I have practical interests in making a harmonic consort of 5-hole flutes and
> of where to drill the holes . No thanks for your no response , but perhaps you are happy to be indulgent articulators .
> Bye .


Ah. A 5-note scale is quite different from the major, minor, and modal scales that all comprise 7 notes.

Because the number of notes is less, the rules for 7 note scales don't necessarily apply. As you note, you could, theoretically put the tonal base on any of the notes as the scale is "missing" some of the components that dictate a "key".

C Eb F G Bb (C)

Root - minor 3rd - whole step - whole step - minor 3rd (- whole step)

So . . . if you decide the "key" could be any of these, you have the following unnamed scales (if we start them all in C)

C Eb F G Bb (C)
C D E G A (C)
C D F G Bb (C)
C Eb F Ab Bb (C)
C D F G A (C)

Of course, with any of these incomplete scales, one COULD add an additional couple of tones (inbetween the minor 3rd skips) and make them complete 7-tone scales.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Here's a tuning for a consort of 5 flutes . (high flute to low) . 

G A D E
F G A C D
D F G A C
A C D E
G A C

This contains five 3rd intervals . That is plenty , and as a set may define a mode .
A compositional insistence on any one of these 3rds can define a key . Each flute
has it's own set of scales however humble they be .


----------



## millionrainbows

pianozach said:


> Ah. A 5-note scale is quite different from the major, minor, and modal scales that all comprise 7 notes.
> 
> Because the number of notes is less, the rules for 7 note scales don't necessarily apply. As you note, you could, theoretically put the tonal base on any of the notes as the scale is "missing" some of the components that dictate a "key".
> 
> C Eb F G Bb (C)
> 
> Root - minor 3rd - whole step - whole step - minor 3rd (- whole step)
> 
> So . . . if you decide the "key" could be any of these, you have the following unnamed scales (if we start them all in C)
> 
> C Eb F G Bb (C)
> C D E G A (C)
> C D F G Bb (C)
> C Eb F Ab Bb (C)
> C D F G A (C)
> 
> Of course, with any of these incomplete scales, one COULD add an additional couple of tones (inbetween the minor 3rd skips) and make them complete 7-tone scales.


Pentatonic scales are not incomplete. C Eb F G Bb is a minor pentatonic, and C D E G A is a major pentatonic. Pentatonic scales are actually more consonant than major scales because of what they do not contain: a tritone or a minor second.

Any 7-note scale will yield a "complementary" pentatonic scale (7+5=12) from the leftover notes.


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> Pentatonic scales are not incomplete. C Eb F G Bb is a minor pentatonic, and C D E G A is a major pentatonic. Pentatonic scales are actually more consonant than major scales because of what they do not contain: a tritone or a minor second.
> 
> Any 7-note scale will yield a "complementary" pentatonic scale (7+5=12) from the leftover notes.


Any 5-note scale is pentatonic, including those with half-steps like Pelog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelog


----------



## Woodduck

pianozach said:


> Ah. A 5-note scale is quite different from the major, minor, and modal scales that all comprise 7 notes.
> 
> Because the number of notes is less, the rules for 7 note scales don't necessarily apply. As you note, you could, theoretically put the tonal base on any of the notes as the scale is "missing" some of the components that dictate a "key".
> 
> C Eb F G Bb (C)
> 
> Root - minor 3rd - whole step - whole step - minor 3rd (- whole step)
> 
> So . . . if you decide the "key" could be any of these, you have the following unnamed scales (if we start them all in C)


This is no more than a matter of nomenclature. You can do the same thing to any sequence of notes. If you do it to CDEFGAB you come up with seven different named scales: Ionian (major), Dorian, Phrygian, etc. We simply haven't called the five possible pentatonic scales by different names.

I'm unaware of any music that uses five of the "inversions" of the pentatonic scale. Only two of them contain the tonic-to-dominant (fifth) interval, corresponding to our major and parallel minor modes, and thus have a clear tonal basis.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Only two of them contain the tonic-to-dominant (fifth) interval, corresponding to our major and parallel minor modes, and thus have a clear tonal basis.


Yeah, those are the two used by blues and jazz players.

Another interesting result of creating "complimentary" pentatonics from 7-note scales is that this means the pentatonics will be as harmonically distant as possible from the other scale. With a C major scale, you get a major pentatonic on F# (very distant) and a minor pentatonic on D# (also very distant).


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Bwv 1080 said:


> Any 5-note scale is pentatonic, including those with half-steps like Pelog
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelog


Very nice . I'd enjoy a thing tuned to Pelog barang : Eb F A Bb C


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the biggest difference, most important, and most understandable to the ear, between scales and modes is the same thing I consider about all scales: their harmonic content and if it can be used to construct chords.

In the C Ionian mode, which has the same notes as a C major scale, one can use any chord containing those notes, built on any step. You can use the half-steps of the mode (E-F and B-C) to make chords such as B-C-G-B-C, or C-E-F-G-B, exploiting the fourth degree F and the seventh degree B. This also exposes the harmonic nature of the C Ionian mode (and the C Maj scale), with the tritone B-F which adds plenty of spice, and "F" as a fourth for a modern quartal sound.

In the CP Western system, the C Maj scale can't be used _harmonically_ as freely, because F is a suspension, and B is a leading note, and these must be resolved for melodic reasons.

That's why I talk about "F" as a "harmonic glitch" in the C major scale; because I am a harmonic thinker, and this is contrary to the CP system, which places priority on voice-leading, counterppoint, and linear thinking.

This is yet another example, explained, of _'different thought-styles.'_

I think most listeners, trained and untrained musically, can easily accept Ionian modal sounds, since they are used very frequently in this era. It makes sense to the ear.

John Williams uses the Ionian mode in "The Raiders March" which we are all familiar with, and "Superman March."

It can be argued that Bach was thinking modally at the very beginning of Cantata 54, Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54.


----------

