# Favorite non-Ionian, non-Aeolian diatonic mode



## Dim7

The normal major and minor modes cannot be included because I say so. Though you could make some kind of academic argument that Ionian and especially Aeolian are not the same thing as normal major and minor, but we won't.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Always loved that good old Locrian. 

Slightly oriental feel to it. Well, more Middle Eastern.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lydian is beautiful


----------



## isorhythm

This is tough. I guess I like the Phrygian mode in the way that it was actually used, with a more or less constant Picardy third. The Lydian and Dorian in actual practice often shaded into major and minor for voice leading reasons. I do love the way Beethoven used those modes in pure form for special effect, though (A minor quartet op 132 and "Et incarnatus" from the Missa solemnis, respectively).

I'm going to vote for Phrygian because it's the most distinctive of those, I guess.


----------



## norman bates

Dr Johnson said:


> Always loved that good old Locrian.
> 
> Slightly oriental feel to it. Well, more Middle Eastern.


I'd be curious to listen songs using it, because I can't think of any song based on it.
Reading wikipedia I've discovered this Dust to dust and I like the sound!


----------



## Dim7

Judas Priest's Painkiller is sort of locrianish. The main riff uses just 4 notes, but has all the distinctive locrian notes, and the tone centre is repeated very emphatically. A lot of metal has minorish riffs that have flattened seconds and fifths occasionally to create and "dark" and "evil" sound, but they are rarely in pure locrian or even pure phrygian.


----------



## Dr Johnson

I think I may play with the Locrian mode all afternoon.


----------



## Dr Johnson

norman bates said:


> I'd be curious to listen songs using it, because I can't think of any song based on it.
> Reading wikipedia I've discovered this *Dust to dust* and I like the sound!


Thanks for finding that.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I like the Phrygian pentatonic, it has a sort of rather mysterious soft tenseness. Dorian is nice but overused. Phrygian is actually the reverse of Ionian.


----------



## Dim7

Phrygian pentatonic? Like E-F-A-B-D?


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'm a Dorian fan. I think it's a sax thing.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Dr Johnson said:


> I think I may play with the Locrian mode all afternoon.


I feel I should be honest. I had a bit of a nap this afternoon. Nonetheless, refreshed, I sprang from the couch and jammed with the Locrian mode.

If you are _very_ unlucky some of you may hear the results!:lol::lol:


----------



## clara s

all these beautiful diatonic modes, the "harmonias" as Terpandros, their creator called them.

Dorian, humble, filling the soul with bravery

Lydian, sometimes joyful and sometimes the perfect mode for lament

Phrygian, lecherous, coming from the Asian worship of Aphrodite

Ionian, soft and gentle

Aeolian, sharp and lively

Mixolydian, where the magic is

Locrian, the least but not last

I will go with Phrygian and Aeolian


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I find Phrygian lovely for composing long melodies over a drone.
The one downside is that I keep typing Phyrgian by accident.


----------



## tdc

Dim7 said:


> Phrygian pentatonic? Like E-F-A-B-D?


I'm not familiar with that one either but I would assume the notes would be E-G-A-B-D

(but this is exactly the same as the regular pentatonic minor - so maybe you are right)


----------



## Bridge

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I like the Phrygian pentatonic, it has a sort of rather mysterious soft tenseness. Dorian is nice but overused. Phrygian is actually the reverse of Ionian.


I think what you mean to say is that the Phrygian mode is the reverse mirror image of the major mode, i.e. retrograde inversion form. Same deal with Mixolydian and minor.

I voted Dorian because I love the Dies Irae but I admire plaintchant in general with all its diverse modes, so I don't really have a strong preference for any one mode.


----------



## tdc

Bridge said:


> I don't really have a strong preference for any one mode.


I agree with this, I see them as different tools, without any one mode being more important than the other, but for the sake of the poll I'll go with Phrygian.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Dim7 said:


> Phrygian pentatonic? Like E-F-A-B-D?


Yes. 15 ******* characters


----------



## hpowders

clara s said:


> all these beautiful diatonic modes, the "harmonias" as Terpandros, their creator called them.
> 
> Dorian, humble, filling the soul with bravery
> 
> Lydian, sometimes joyful and sometimes the perfect mode for lament
> 
> Phrygian, lecherous, coming from the Asian worship of Aphrodite
> 
> Ionian, soft and gentle
> 
> Aeolian, sharp and lively
> 
> Mixolydian, where the magic is
> 
> Locrian, the least but not last
> 
> I will go with Phrygian and Aeolian


After reading your post, I am now in a better mode than before I read it.:tiphat:


----------



## clara s

hpowders said:


> After reading your post, I am now in a better mode than before I read it.:tiphat:


aha... thanks

A man of genius has a right to any mode of expression,

as Ezra Pound has cleverly declared

pick up your mode


----------



## hpowders

clara s said:


> aha... thanks
> 
> A man of genius has a right to any mode of expression,
> 
> as Ezra Pound has cleverly declared
> 
> pick up your mode


Sorry, but an ounce of Pound is more than I can stand.


----------



## Dim7

Post examples of your favorite mode. Or any modes in the poll.

Lydian:





(The 3rd movement of Beethoven's SQ 15 still doesn't sound Lydian mode to me)


----------



## Mahlerian

Phrygian mode:


----------



## Pugg

hpowders said:


> Sorry, but an ounce of Pound is more than I can stand.


Witty as always .


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I chose dorian but of course enjoy them all. Phrygian/lydian dominant is also cool


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Phrygian mode:


Weird, I don't hear that as Phrygian at all. I probably do not hear any of the Renaissance to be in any "mode" really, they just... often end in the "wrong" note.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Weird, I don't hear that as Phrygian at all. I probably do not hear any of the Renaissance to be in any "mode" really, they just... often end in the "wrong" note.


Well, in the modern sense of mode as simply a scale to draw from for notes, they aren't in the modes. Renaissance composers treated the modes more freely, and the primary way of determining the mode was where it ended. Here it ends on E; the harmony is major rather than minor because a minor ending would have been considered unresolved.


----------



## Woodduck

Dim7 said:


> Weird, I don't hear that as Phrygian at all. I probably do not hear any of the Renaissance to be in any "mode" really, they just... often end in the "wrong" note.


Incredibly beautiful stuff. Despite beginning and ending on "E" the harmony is so free that it hardly makes sense to say that it's "in" a mode at all. I'm with you in hearing nothing of a Phrygian character.


----------



## millionrainbows

Didn't they name all the modes incorrectly due to an error? That really screwed it up, as if "modes" weren't problematic enough.

I don't play lousy music any longer. Ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aolean, locrian. That's how I memorized 'em.

To me, the Miles Davis tune "Nardis" is phrygian. He used it to make it sound "Egyptian."


----------



## tdc

As is so often the case when Phrygian is used this piece uses a combination of both Phrygian and Phrygian with a raised 3.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Didn't they name all the modes incorrectly due to an error? That really screwed it up, as if "modes" weren't problematic enough.


Yes, Medieval theorists took the names of the Greek modes and reapplied them to different collections. Most importantly, the Dorian and the Phrygian were switched.

Anyway, the example I posted above is certainly in the Renaissance Phrygian mode, as any theorist of the time would have identified it. It starts on E, cadences on A and C, and ends on E. Those are the most important characteristics that identify a Phrygian piece. Whatever harmonies intervene are irrelevant, because the modes, unlike keys, do not imply any harmonic structure.

A bit of an aside, but I'll also leave this here for people interested in the development from modality to tonality:
http://www.kholopov.ru/arc/atcherson.pdf


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> ...It starts on E, cadences on A and C, and ends on E. Those are the most important characteristics that identify a Phrygian piece.


I would mention as a starter that the most important concept for modern listeners to grasp, before all else, is that the modes are strictly melodic in nature. 
The modal concept is from the early period before the Renaissance, and before the idea of harmony had developed. 
As I understand it, modes are not harmonic; they are strictly melodic in nature, before the concept of harmony had even developed.



> Whatever harmonies intervene are irrelevant, because the modes, unlike keys, do not imply any harmonic structure.


What do you mean by "whatever harmonies intervene?" I thought modality was strictly melodic. Do you mean the intersecting polyphonic lines?

If so, then you are saying that the perceived 'harmonies' are irrelevant to the modal system itself, but not necessarily to the ear, as your statement implies by "intervening harmonies" that are present in some way, but irrelevant or improper or 'do not exist' conceptually.

Many questions:

1.) Is this 'intervening harmony' illusory if one hears it? If so, does the modal concept render these sounds as beyond consideration?

2.) Does the 'theory' of modes override the actual sound of perceived 'harmony'?

3.) Is it necessary to "think" a certain way when listening to modal music, to insure that we do not mistake any 'coincidences of intersecting lines' as harmony?



> ...the modes, unlike keys, do not imply any harmonic structure.


4.) I know that the modes were not _intended_ to imply any harmonic structure (as harmony did not yet exist as a concept), but what if they did anyway?

5.) What if someone heard modes as harmony? 
Would they be wrong, or denounced as a heretic?

6.) What if the composers also heard modes harmonically, even though they are a non-harmonic system, but they tried to harmonically imply things because they liked the way it sounded? Is this far-fetched?



> A bit of an aside, but I'll also leave this here for people interested in the development from modality to tonality:
> http://www.kholopov.ru/arc/atcherson.pdf


I couldn't access the link. Sounds interesting and informative, though.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Incredibly beautiful stuff. Despite beginning and ending on "E" the harmony is so free that it hardly makes sense to say that it's "in" a mode at all. I'm with you in hearing nothing of a Phrygian character.


I don't hear this as Phrygian either. Is this example some sort of Renaissance exception? If so, is this a good example to use in describing the Phrygian mode to the average lay person?

I always thought Phrygian was the melodic entity E-F-G-A-B-C-D.

I thought Phrygian had E as a starting note, with that distinctive flatted second (from E to F), and was minor-sounding, since it had a minor third (E-G).

Questions, to anyone:

1.) What have I described, and why would this not be a Phrygian mode? Have I described a Phrygian scale?

2.) If a mode cannot be identified by ear (as this one does not sound Phrygian to three of us here), then doesn't this make it, essentially, an arbitrary intellectual construct?

It seems that one would have to "think their way through" the identification of modes in this way.

Since modes are not scales, they are not harmonic entities, yet this seems at odds with the way we naturally hear. If so, then 'modes' are a very rigid, artificial concept which has less to do with sound and the way we hear, than with traditions and systems.

3.) Does anyone agree or disagree with the above line of inquiry?


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I would mention as a starter that the most important concept for modern listeners to grasp, before all else, is that the modes are strictly melodic in nature.
> The modal concept is from the early period before the Renaissance, and before the idea of harmony had developed.
> As I understand it, modes are not harmonic; they are strictly melodic in nature, before the concept of harmony had even developed.


It is not that they had no concept of harmony; they did consider the vertical dimension of pieces and endeavor to provide a variety and unity within that dimension. It is rather that they did not have any concept of triads as self-sufficient entities (the word didn't exist until the 17th century) nor any concept of tonal function. The connections of harmonies are made for the purpose of voice leading, not for the establishment of keys. As the paper I linked to remarks, they also had no concept of modulation, though changes in mode were possible.



millionrainbows said:


> What do you mean by "whatever harmonies intervene?" I thought modality was strictly melodic. Do you mean the intersecting polyphonic lines?
> 
> If so, then you are saying that the perceived 'harmonies' are irrelevant to the modal system itself, but not necessarily to the ear, as your statement implies by "intervening harmonies" that are present in some way, but irrelevant or improper or 'do not exist' conceptually.


Harmony is not relevant to determining the mode, save at cadences. That is all that I meant.



millionrainbows said:


> Question: Is this 'intervening harmony' illusory if one hears it? If so, does the modal concept render these sounds as beyond consideration?


It is not that it is illusory, nor beyond consideration, but rather that the modal concept is not dependent on harmony for its identity.



millionrainbows said:


> Does the 'theory' of modes override the actual sound of perceived 'harmony'?


If you're determining the mode of a piece, of course it does.



millionrainbows said:


> Is it necessary to "think" a certain way when listening to modal music, to insure that we do not mistake any 'coincidences of intersecting lines' as harmony?


No. Here, as with your idea that I willfully hear 12-tone music a certain way, you give far too much credence to theory and too little to perception. Intention has little to do with it.



millionrainbows said:


> I know that the modes were not _intended_ to imply any harmonic structure (as harmony did not yet exist as a concept), but what if they did anyway? What if someone heard it as harmony? Would they be wrong, or denounced as a heretic?


It's not that there's no harmonic structure, but rather that there is no key, no functional tonality relating the harmonies to each other.



millionrainbows said:


> What if the composers also heard it as harmony, even though it was a non-harmonic system, but they tried to harmonically imply things because they liked the way it sounded? Is this far-fetched?


It's not a non-harmonic system, but rather one which does not depend on harmony for identification. You're approaching this the wrong way. Of course composers chose the harmonic combinations they did because they liked the way they sounded.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Since modes are not scales, they are not harmonic entities, yet this seems at odds with the way we naturally hear. If so, then 'modes' are a very rigid, artificial concept which has less to do with sound and the way we hear, than with traditions and systems.


I've tried to explain that modes are not scales in the past, and several people took issue with that. I actually disagree that we hear in terms of scales in the first place. The modal system, whatever its basis, stood for far longer than Common Practice tonality did. Why should we identify the latter as more natural? Melody preceded any kind of harmony, and functional harmony was almost entirely limited to the European tradition. A system based on melody is a far more likely candidate for "natural" than one based on functional harmony.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> If a mode cannot be identified by ear (as this one does not sound Phrygian to three of us here), then doesn't this make it, essentially, an arbitrary intellectual construct?


I can identify a piece as Phrygian. It doesn't sound Dorian, and has some characteristic cadences. Here's another piece in the Phrygian mode, which is even identified as "Missa Quarti Toni," Mass in the Fourth Mode, ie Hypophrygian (which has a different range than the regular Phrygian):


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> I can identify a piece as Phrygian. It doesn't sound Dorian, and has some characteristic cadences. Here's another piece in the Phrygian mode, which is even identified as "Missa Quarti Toni," Mass in the Fourth Mode, ie Hypophrygian (which has a different range than the regular Phrygian):


This music of Ockeghem (1410-1497), who lived a century before Lassus (1532-1594), has more of the harmonic quality we today would associate with the Phrygian mode, regardless of the traditional application of terminology. Hearing both works without reference to the score, I might identify this piece as Phrygian, but would definitely not so identify the Lassus, where the clues to its source in the mode are swamped by the piece's other harmonic qualities. Modal theory may not be harmonic theory per se, but the modes were certainly used in ways having harmonic implications. The move toward common practice tonality and the harmonic relationships typical of it was very obviously under way in the 16th century.

The theory of music - what things are historically and "correctly" called - is useful and interesting. But the name of a thing is not the thing, the debates over what to call things have always waged, and music's development, not to mention the practice of individual composers, constantly outpaces theory. The rigid dichotomy of "modality vs. tonality" is certainly a perfect example of this. The article by Walter Atcherson, http://www.kholopov.ru/arc/atcherson.pdf seems to me revealing of the tendency of theorists to shoehorn musical practice and perception into theoretical categories: _"During the period of transition from modal theory to major/ minor key theory, roughly coextensive with the seventeenth century, elements and characteristics of modes are often found intermingled with key traits; the transition was hardly instantaneous."_ Notice that he says, not the "period of transition from modal to tonal practice" but the "period of transition from modal theory to major/ minor key theory," as if the way theorists described (and sometimes prescribed) compositional categories and procedures were what mattered, rather than how musicians and listeners actually heard and felt music.

The question, "What is your favorite mode?" I take to be asking "What mode do you like the sound of." A liking for the Phrygian mode, nowadays, entails a liking for a "minor" sound with a very distinctive flatted second degree, and if a piece is harmonically complex, one would want to hear harmonic progressions based on those features. The Lassus is harmonically complex but virtually devoid of the Phrygian "signature," the flatted second. It's also full of relationships, involving both tonal levels (tonic, dominant, subdominant, relative minor/major) and specific progressions, which came to dominate harmonic thinking in the common practice era.


----------



## isorhythm

Mode in Renaissance music is tricky. Harold Powers wrote a widely cited essay called "Is Mode Real?" that I would like to read, but have never gotten my hands on the full text. It's a complicated question.

By the _end_ of the 16th century, you did have composers consciously writing pieces in modes, as opposed to theorists classifying them after the fact. And they began to take on more characteristic properties.

For example this is Tallis' famous tune in the Phrygian mode: 




The third is sharp almost everywhere!

_Spem in alium_ is clearly in the Mixolydian mode. The opposition of G major (tonic) and D minor is a constant thread through the whole piece and is largely the source of its distinctive sound.

There are also very characteristic uses of the Dorian. E.g., Palestrina's Stabat Mater, where the Dorian character is established right away: leading tone is sharp, sixth degree is natural going up and flat coming down: 




As far as I know no one at that time ever used the Lydian mode as Beethoven and Bruckner et al later imagined it. You couldn't have a tritone above the final - it was just always flat. This 14th century thing might be a candidate for Lydian, though:


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> Mode in Renaissance music is tricky. Harold Powers wrote a widely cited essay called "Is Mode Real?" that I would like to read, but have never gotten my hands on the full text. It's a complicated question.
> 
> By the _end_ of the 16th century, you did have composers consciously writing pieces in modes, as opposed to theorists classifying them after the fact. And they began to take on more characteristic properties.


Yes, and the fact remains that the Lassus example I cited would have unquestionably been considered within the Phrygian mode, both by the composer and by his contemporaries. He wrote a set of Penitential Psalms, with each one written in a different mode. No. 3 (and thus in the third mode, authentic Phrygian) bears the same characteristics as the piece I posted earlier.

http://www3.cpdl.org/wiki/images/1/1a/Lassus_Domine_ne_in_furore_tuo_..._quoniam.pdf


----------



## isorhythm

^I do hear this as Phrygian, actually.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> ^I do hear this as Phrygian, actually.


Not the other one though? It sounded very clearly Phrygian to me even before I checked it in the score.


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> Not the other one though? It sounded very clearly Phrygian to me even before I checked it in the score.


No, that one too. I think it's a pretty distinctive sound. Tallis's Lamentations is another great one.

I actually think Barber's Adagio is Phrygian, but I may be alone in that.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> No, that one too. I think it's a pretty distinctive sound. Tallis's Lamentations is another great one.
> 
> I actually think Barber's Adagio is Phrygian, but I may be alone in that.


Not at all. Even the Wikipedia article on Phrygian mentions it.


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> Not at all. Even the Wikipedia article on Phrygian mentions it.


Ha, never mind then! I remember reading something once that send it ended on an unresolved dominant and thinking, that is wrong.


----------



## isorhythm

Another one: the Luther hymn _Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir_ is Phrygian, and Bach maintains the Phrygian character in the opening chorus and closing chorale harmonization of his cantata on it, BWV 38.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> I actually think Barber's Adagio is Phrygian, but I may be alone in that.


It's Phrygian all right. Never occurred to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Before posting examples of problematic Renaissance pieces, shouldn't it be revealed that the concept of modes in Western music theory has three successive stages? I refer to:

1.) Gregorian chant theory, 
2.) Renaissance polyphonic theory, and 
3.) in tonal harmonic music of the common practice period

The Lassus piece in post #23 still sounds like E minor or G major, totally 'normal" and un-phrygian. What makes it 'phrygian,' that it starts on E? E minor starts on "E" as well. What distinction should we be making (with our ears) when identifying this as 'phrygian?'


----------



## millionrainbows

This exchange in post #34 seems contradictory:

_







Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
Does the 'theory' of modes override the actual sound of perceived 'harmony'?

_




> If you're determining the mode of a piece, of course it does.


_







Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
Is it necessary to "think" a certain way when listening to modal music, to insure that we do not mistake any 'coincidences of intersecting lines' as harmony?

_




> No. Here, as with your idea that I willfully hear 12-tone music a certain way, you give far too much credence to theory and too little to perception. Intention has little to do with it.


In the first reply, you say that theory overrides the actual sound, and the identification of a mode is dependent on theory, not the sound of it.

Yet, in the second reply, you say that I give "thought" and "theory" too much credence, yet you will not allow the identity of a mode to be determined by ear.

If the "sound" of a mode has nothing to do with identifying it, then what are we talking about? What is a mode? Is it a sound, or merely a convention?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Before posting examples of problematic Renaissance pieces, shouldn't it be revealed that the concept of modes in Western music theory has three successive stages? I refer to:
> 
> 1.) Gregorian chant theory,
> 2.) Renaissance polyphonic theory, and
> 3.) in tonal harmonic music of the common practice period
> 
> The Lassus piece in post #23 still sounds like E minor or G major, totally 'normal" and un-phrygian. What makes it 'phrygian,' that it starts on E? E minor starts on "E" as well. What distinction should we be making (with our ears) when identifying this as 'phrygian?'


That the F is usually natural instead of sharp is what makes it sound Phrygian. It makes it sound "darker" than minor to me, though that's subjective.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> The Lassus piece in post #23 still sounds like E minor or G major, totally 'normal" and un-phrygian. What makes it 'phrygian,' that it starts on E? E minor starts on "E" as well. What distinction should we be making (with our ears) when identifying this as 'phrygian?'[/COLOR]


First of all, it's not common practice (as is clear from the lack of emphasis on harmonic progressions guided by function), and thus it cannot be in E minor or G major.

Secondly, it sounds Phrygian because it has the characteristic melodic and cadential patterns of that mode.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> In the first reply, you say that theory overrides the actual sound, and the identification of a mode is dependent on theory, not the sound of it.
> 
> Yet, in the second reply, you say that I give "thought" and "theory" too much credence, yet you will not allow the identity of a mode to be determined by ear.
> 
> If the "sound" of a mode has nothing to do with identifying it, then what are we talking about? What is a mode? Is it a sound, or merely a convention?


It's not a sound, though it affects the way a piece sounds. Since a mode is a melodic construct, naturally it can operate independently of the harmonies created within a modal piece. That said, the final of a mode and the reciting tone will determine the harmonic direction so far as it will end up in specific places.

By the time of late Romanticism, can't we fairly say that keys themselves are a convention rather than a "sound"? In the Baroque and Classical eras, a piece that begins in C major will inevitably make the journey to G major and then back to C major, but in the late Romantic era, something ostensibly in C major could go to A-flat and then make its way to E without touching G as a tonal area.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...The Lassus is harmonically complex but virtually devoid of the Phrygian "signature," the flatted second. *It's also full of relationships, involving both tonal levels (tonic, dominant, subdominant, relative minor/major) and specific progressions,* which came to dominate harmonic thinking in the common practice era.


And that's what I'm hearing: the harmonic relationships and progressions.

I'm concluding that this modal second-phase Lassus piece is not appropriate to show how modes work, since it seems to be well on the way towards harmonic thinking.




Mahlerian said:


> First of all, it's not common practice (as is clear from the lack of emphasis on harmonic progressions guided by function), and thus it cannot be in E minor or G major.


It _sounds_ like it's major/minor because of the many relationships which exist vertically; and I would bet that Lassus was thinking in terms of chords (triads) when he wrote it, even though triads were not formally introduced yet.

It does not sound Phyrigian because there is no flatted second.

In fact, what Woodduck is saying makes sense; the thinking in this piece by Lassus appears, by hearing it, to be already full of what will soon become 'harmonic function', al

I'm all for listening melodically, and listening for cadences, finals, and the general polyphony of music, but when the boundaries become blurred and harmony begins to assert itself so strongly as in the Lassus, I don't feel like I should have to consult the score just so I will know what to call what I'm listening to. I'd rather read some liner notes that tell me "this Lassus is in the pre-harmonic era, the second phase of modal theory, and it is going to sound that way because…"

Request: post some earlier music, Gregorian chant or slightly later, that we can all agree sounds Phrygian. Apparently, this Rennaissance stuff is too problematic, too close to the boundaries of harmony to be of much use as an example.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> And that's what I'm hearing: the harmonic relationships and progressions.
> 
> I'm concluding that this modal second-phase Lassus piece is not appropriate to show how modes work, since it seems to be well on the way towards harmonic thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> It _sounds_ like it's major/minor because of the many relationships which exist vertically; and I would bet that Lassus was thinking in terms of chords (triads) when he wrote it, even though triads were not formally introduced yet.
> 
> It does not sound Phyrigian because there is no flatted second.
> 
> In fact, what Woodduck is saying makes sense; the thinking in this piece by Lassus appears, by hearing it, to be already full of what will soon become 'harmonic function', al
> 
> I'm all for listening melodically, and listening for cadences, finals, and the general polyphony of music, but when the boundaries become blurred and harmony begins to assert itself so strongly as in the Lassus, I don't feel like I should have to consult the score just so I will know what to call what I'm listening to. I'd rather read some liner notes that tell me "this Lassus is in the pre-harmonic era, the second phase of modal theory, and it is going to sound that way because…"


There is a flatted second above the root, E. Maybe you think a lot of sounds like it's in A? That can happen with Phrygian pieces.

As you say, Lassus certainly thought about triads and how they were related. The idea that there was a "pre-harmonic" era is not correct. Of course all those composers thought about harmony. There just wasn't as much theory about it yet.

The modes in polyphony in fact get a lot of their character from harmony. For example, final cadences in the Phrygian or Mixolydian modes must be plagal.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> There is a flatted second above the root, E. Maybe you think a lot of sounds like it's in A? That can happen with Phrygian pieces.


Ahh, so that's it...



> As you say, Lassus certainly thought about triads and how they were related. The idea that there was a "pre-harmonic" era is not correct. Of course all those composers thought about harmony. There just wasn't as much theory about it yet.


Okay, that makes sense. Harmony was still developing, so these progressions (not) will sound maybe more circular, more wandering, never settling down, meandering…do others hear it like this?



> The modes in polyphony in fact get a lot of their character from harmony. For example, final cadences in the Phrygian or Mixolydian modes must be plagal.


Cadences aside, that makes a lot of sense as well, since in (ex.) Dorian, who's gonna distinguish melodically between its flatted sixth degree and the natural sixth of aolean (natural minor) until you build a triad on the degree? Then, an audible difference: Dorian will have a major triad on IV, while aolean will have a minor. Even primitive folk singers knew this.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, that makes sense. Harmony was still developing, so these progressions (not) will sound maybe more circular, more wandering, never settling down, meandering…do others hear it like this?


I think hearing Renaissance music as poorly conceived proto-tonal harmony (as, it must be admitted, Schoenberg did) is patronizing and disrespectful to their highly developed art. Hear it for what it is, not for what it reminds you of.

Of course I hear and perceive the lack of functional "force" behind the progressions, but there's no reason to expect that it should be there, so I listen to it as modal music, not as common practice.


----------



## Torkelburger

Mixolydian:


----------



## Woodduck

I can remember when, as a young initiate into the world of classical music, I heard Renaissance music with no knowledge of or preconceptions about modes or tonal systems. I found it beautiful, it didn't sound "wrong," I just heard its roving tonality as a glorious, otherworldly harmonic fantasy. It's nice now to be able to point to its modal foundation or the emerging features of common practice overlaid on this base, or enriching it, but it still seems unimportant whether we emphasize this or that stylistic aspect. Tonality is fluid in such music, and that balance of groundedness and ethereality is a delight no matter how we describe it. I'll call it a bridge between earth and heaven (whatever we conceive that to be).


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, and the fact remains that the Lassus example I cited would have unquestionably been considered within the Phrygian mode, both by the composer and by his contemporaries. He wrote a set of Penitential Psalms, with each one written in a different mode. No. 3 (and thus in the third mode, authentic Phrygian) bears the same characteristics as the piece I posted earlier.


This is true. In that era, the Lassus example would have been heard in the Phrygian mode. Nevertheless, it does not contain a single typical Phrygian cadence as the term would have been understood for most of the existence of the modal system. Here are examples of typical Phrygian cadences, all of which contain a sixth expanding to an octave, with the second degree of the mode descending to the final:









Phrygian cadences ending with a minor third above the final were not unusual, the final cadence of Josquin's _Mille regretz_ being a prime example.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> This is true. In that era, the Lassus example would have been heard in the Phrygian mode. Nevertheless, it does not contain a single typical Phrygian cadence as the term would have been understood for most of the existence of the modal system. Here are examples of typical Phrygian cadences, all of which contain a sixth expanding to an octave, with the second degree of the mode descending to the final:
> 
> View attachment 86765
> 
> 
> Phrygian cadences ending with a minor third above the final were not unusual, the final cadence of Josquin's _Mille regretz_ being a prime example.


All correct, and I admit being misled regarding the minor ending by Fux and others.


----------



## QuietGuy

I like Lydian also. The very first bars of Daphnis et Chloe (full ballet) is a complete Lydian scale, and is completely magical!


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> All correct, and I admit being misled regarding the minor ending by Fux and others.


I might have overstated the position a bit. By Lassus's time, Phrygian cadences without the expanding sixth were pretty common (as in _Mille regretz!_), so one could argue that by that time the cadences in the Lassus were fairly typical.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Okay, that makes sense. Harmony was still developing, so these progressions (not) will sound maybe more circular, more wandering, never settling down, meandering..._



Mahlerian said:


> I think hearing Renaissance music as poorly conceived proto-tonal harmony (as, it must be admitted, Schoenberg did) is patronizing and disrespectful to their highly developed art. Hear it for what it is, not for what it reminds you of.
> 
> Of course I hear and perceive the lack of functional "force" behind the progressions, but there's no reason to expect that it should be there, so I listen to it as modal music, not as common practice.


I didn't mean that as a criticism; it just sounds like it's wandering. I like it. I like it in the same way that Woodduck so eloquently describes:



Woodduck said:


> I can remember when, as a young initiate into the world of classical music, I heard Renaissance music with no knowledge of or preconceptions about modes or tonal systems. I found it beautiful, it didn't sound "wrong," I just heard its roving tonality as a glorious, otherworldly harmonic fantasy. It's nice now to be able to point to its modal foundation or the emerging features of common practice overlaid on this base, or enriching it, but it still seems unimportant whether we emphasize this or that stylistic aspect. Tonality is fluid in such music, and that balance of groundedness and ethereality is a delight no matter how we describe it. I'll call it a bridge between earth and heaven (whatever we conceive that to be).


Your reply shows you to be on the defensive. Believe me, I like Medieval and Renaissance music. I've got the "Labyrinth" box. I have the code ring and lapel button.

Still, I don't want my listening experience, and impressions, stated as my opinions, to be 'restricted' because I don't understand modal music as thoroughly as I want, or use the wrong terminology. I hear this music as "on the way" to being CP harmony. A lot of things hadn't been codified yet, but were nonetheless "there."

As Isorhythm said in his post #53:
_



As you say, Lassus certainly thought about triads and how they were related. The idea that there was a "pre-harmonic" era is not correct. Of course all those composers thought about harmony. There just wasn't as much theory about it yet.

Click to expand...

_So just because I hear triads, and triads hadn't been formally recognized at this time, doesn't mean I see it as "poor tonality." It just means that you are letting theory, and history, disavow us of the "elephant in the room" that our ears tell us is there (because we clearly smell the peanuts on its breath): this is proto-tonality.


----------



## Dim7

Lydian:


----------



## millionrainbows

Frank Zappa really emphasizes the lydian sound here.


----------



## Torkelburger

The opening of Darius Milhaud's _Protee Suite_ is Lydian:


----------



## millionrainbows

I would hesitate to call Barber's Adagio 'phrygian.' He may have alluded to it, but we are in the modern CP tonal era and the definition of mode has changed. The suspension is a suspension, not a b9. We all hear it as a 4-3, not a b9-1.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> So just because I hear triads, and triads hadn't been formally recognized at this time, doesn't mean I see it as "poor tonality." It just means that you are letting theory, and history, disavow us of the "elephant in the room" that our ears tell us is there (because we clearly smell the peanuts on its breath): this is proto-tonality.


The triad had been recognized, although that term was not used. Zarlino cited it as the essential sonority of Renaissance music as early as 1558.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The triad had been recognized, although that term was not used. Zarlino cited it as the essential sonority of Renaissance music as early as 1558.


Yes, but only in a specific voicing. It was not invertable, and thus not identical to the triad as was conceived from the Baroque era on.

What we would consider inversions of the basic triad would have been considered separate harmonies.

So like I said, the _concept_ of the triad did not exist. Think of it this way: you can find places in works of composers like Beethoven and Mozart where all or most of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale are used with few or no repetitions. As everyone knows, the _concept_ of a tone row didn't exist then, but clearly a musician of the time could have looked at such a passage and note that all of the notes of the chromatic scale were employed.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> _The triad had been recognized, although that term was not used. Zarlino cited it as the essential sonority of Renaissance music as early as 1558. _






Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but only in a specific voicing. It was not invertable, and thus not identical to the triad as was conceived from the Baroque era on.
> 
> What we would consider inversions of the basic triad would have been considered separate harmonies.


Well, since this 'triad voicing' could not be separated from the individual lines, that seems self-evident. Still, the _sonority _of a triad existed, and it seems that Renaissance composers were thinking of it this way, and were developing the relationships we now see as function. This seems like splitting hairs to me.



> So like I said, the _concept_ of the triad did not exist. Think of it this way: you can find places in works of composers like Beethoven and Mozart where all or most of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale are used with few or no repetitions. As everyone knows, the _concept_ of a tone row didn't exist then, but clearly a musician of the time could have looked at such a passage and note that all of the notes of the chromatic scale were employed.


Like in Bach's Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor, these are passing tones. This did not lead to 12-note rows, or even total chromaticism. What led to it was chromatic root movement; this is a crucial distinction.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Well, since this 'triad voicing' could not be separated from the individual lines, that seems self-evident. Still, the _sonority _of a triad existed, and it seems that Renaissance composers were thinking of it this way, *and were developing the relationships we now see as function*. This seems like splitting hairs to me.


No, they weren't. They were working with the sound of the harmonies produced, yes, but not with triads as they were understood later, nor with function, which requires triads used in this way.

In the common practice functional system, E-G-C is a tonic triad, G-B-D a dominant triad, and B-D-G another dominant triad, but in the Renaissance system, there would have been three, not two, separate harmonies listed here. They would not have considered them functionally equivalent at all.


----------



## EdwardBast

EdwardBast said:


> The triad had been recognized, although that term was not used. Zarlino cited it as the essential sonority of Renaissance music as early as 1558.





Mahlerian said:


> *Yes, but only in a specific voicing. It was not invertable, and thus not identical to the triad as was conceived from the Baroque era on.*
> 
> What we would consider inversions of the basic triad would have been considered separate harmonies.


This is false. I have refuted this claim before with specific citations. I will do so again so that perhaps we won't have to go through this process again.

Zarlino does not use the term triad. He uses instead the term "perfect harmony" in referring to triadic configurations, and not only those in root position. In Chapter 59 of _Istitutioni Harmoniche _(1558), he writes:

"A composition may be called perfect when, in every change of chord … there are heard all those consonances whose components give a variety of sound. Where such consonances are heard, the harmony is truly perfect. Now these consonances that offer diversity to the ear are the fifth and third or their compounds … We must strive to have these two consonances sound in our compositions as much as possible."

This means root position triads in any voicing. But Zarlino goes on to note that:

"… musicians often write the sixth in place of the fifth and this is fine."

Thus the first inversion triad is an acceptable, if perhaps slightly less perfect form of _harmonia perfeta_, which is exactly what modern theorists think! Second inversion chords are not sanctioned but this is no surprise, since they are largely excluded in modern theory as well. This is why the cadencial 6/4 is considered a fiction, since the 6 and 4 above the bass arise as non-harmonic tones. Usually this sonority is interpreted as a V chord with 6-5 and 4-3 suspensions. Zarlino would accept these forms of "second inversion" triads because he too would recognize the 6 and 4 as suspensions.

Conclusion: The triad in its modern form was advocated as the essential sonority of Western music by Gioseffo Zarlino in 1558.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> This means root position triads in any voicing. But Zarlino goes on to note that:
> 
> "… musicians often write the sixth in place of the fifth and this is fine."
> 
> Thus the first inversion triad is an acceptable, if perhaps slightly less perfect form of _harmonia perfeta_. Second inversion chords are excluded but this is no surprise, since they are largely excluded in modern theory as well. This is why the cadencial 6/4 is considered a fiction, since the 6 and 4 above the bass arise as non-harmonic tones. Usually this sonority is interpreted as a V chord with 6-5 and 4-3 suspensions.


But that wouldn't be the same triad at all. It would be an A minor chord in first inversion. What I'm saying is that Zarlino would not have considered C-E-G (in any voicing, including compounds, naturally!) to be the same kind of harmony as E-G-C, the way a Baroque theorist would. The point about the 6/4 is taken, but in modern practice, eg Stravinsky's Neoclassicism, the 6/4 can act as a tonic triad, even as an ending.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> But that wouldn't be the same triad at all. It would be an A minor chord in first inversion. What I'm saying is that Zarlino would not have considered C-E-G (in any voicing, including compounds, naturally!) to be the same kind of harmony as E-G-C, the way a Baroque theorist would.


Baroque theorists didn't consider those two chords the same either! In the time of Bach they had different rules for resolution and were considered different sonorities. Actually, if you look at any modern theory book, you will see that no one to this day considers those sonorities equivalent. They tend to arise in different situations and positions within progressions and they have different voice leading conventions for continuation and resolution.

The alleged inversional equivalence so many take for granted today is just a convenient simplification (or fiction) foisted on theory students. Always has been. It facilitates to some extent the use of functional terminology, but this too is a convenience that one must always take with a grain of salt in practice.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Baroque theorists didn't consider those two chords the same either! In the time of Bach they had different rules for resolution and were considered different sonorities. Actually, if you look at any modern theory book, you will see that no one to this day considers those sonorities equivalent. They tend to arise in different situations and positions within progressions and they have different voice leading conventions for continuation and resolution.
> 
> The alleged inversional equivalence so many take for granted today is just a convenient simplification (or fiction) foisted on theory students. Always has been.


For functional harmony, they are considered equivalent. Obviously for voice leading reasons they move differently, but that was not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not they would have been considered related to the same root, the way a triad retains its identity under inversion.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> For functional harmony, they are considered equivalent. Obviously for voice leading reasons they move differently, but that was not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not they would have been considered related to the same root, the way a triad retains its identity under inversion.


Wrong. The issue I raised and which you disputed is whether or not the triad was recognized as the basic unit of harmony. You argued that it was not because only one voicing of a triadic configuration was recognized. I proved that this is incorrect; that in fact, root position and first inversion voicings were considered instances of the same global concept, _harmonia perfeta_. Zarlino recognized that these perfect harmonies comprised three notes, that in four-voice counterpoint one note had to be doubled. He expressed the same doubling preferences as modern theorists do. Obviously, he also recognized that C-E-G and E-G-C are different configurations of the same three note harmony. He stated that the configuration with third and fifth was more perfect and stable than the one with sixth and third, which means he recognized the concept of a root in every way that could have been meaningful in his time. The only thing missing is the notion of tonal function, which (duh!), is anachronistic and didn't existence in pretonal music, and this argument from tonal function is the only thing left of your argument. In summary, Zarlino advocated the exclusive use of triads, the same ones we consider consonant, as the harmonic vocabulary of music. The fact that he called them harmonia perfeta rather than triads is trivial, especially since he declared that all perfect harmonies comprise three notes.

As an addendum, and FYI: Triads don't maintain their functional identity under inversion. At best, they maintain a part of their identity. In other instances they retain none of it. For example, and going from the bass up, most instances of G-C-E are not instances of C major triads. They have G as a root and two suspensions above. The same holds true for many other instances of alleged (second) inversional equivalence. Likewise, many instances of E-G-C are not C major triads, but rather have E as a root and a 6-5 suspension above. Others result from passing motion. Bach didn't recognize inversional equivalence.


----------



## Mahlerian

No, the issue was whether triads *as we now understand them* were conceived of in the Renaissance. The very fact that we can discuss 6 and 6/4 inversions as related to the same root as a different chord (however dubiously in the latter case) means that we have a different conception.

I quote the post which you pounced on as incorrect.



Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but only in a specific voicing. *It was not invertable, and thus not identical to the triad as was conceived from the Baroque era on.*
> 
> *What we would consider inversions of the basic triad would have been considered separate harmonies.*
> 
> So like I said, *the concept of the triad did not exist*. Think of it this way: you can find places in works of composers like Beethoven and Mozart where all or most of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale are used with few or no repetitions. As everyone knows, the _concept_ of a tone row didn't exist then, but clearly a musician of the time could have looked at such a passage and note that all of the notes of the chromatic scale were employed.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> No, the issue was whether triads *as we now understand them* were conceived of in the Renaissance. The very fact that we can discuss 6 and 6/4 inversions as related to the same root as a different chord (however dubiously in the latter case) means that we have a different conception.
> 
> I quote the post which you pounced on as incorrect.


It was invertible, as I demonstrated.

What we consider inversions of the basic triad _were_ considered separate harmonies _in the Baroque_. Your statement is factually incorrect. Moreover, even in modern theory texts the inversions are not taught as functionally equivalent. Take a look at the tonal functions of first inversion chords as laid out by Walter Piston. III and VI in first inversion don't even exist as separate chords, whereas in root position they do. Some of the others occur in different positions within functional progressions.

The concept of the triad did exist. It was called harmonia perfeta. All harmonia perfeta are triads. No other configuration of notes is comprised by this category.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> It was invertible, as I demonstrated.


No, you didn't. You pointed out a section in Zarlino where he was talking about something completely different, building different interval structures on a bass. As described, you would end up with two separate triads, not two inversions of a single triad.



EdwardBast said:


> What we consider inversions of the basic triad _were_ considered separate harmonies _in the Baroque_. Your statement is factually incorrect. Moreover, even in modern theory texts the inversions are not taught as functionally equivalent. Take a look at the tonal functions of first inversion chords as laid out by Walter Piston. III and VI in first inversion don't even exist is separate chords, whereas in root position they do.
> 
> The concept of the triad did exist. It was called harmonia perfeta. All harmonia perfeta are triads.
> 
> The fact that we related notes to a root is merely a convenience of nomenclature.


No, roots are the perceptual basis of functional harmony, and Rameau, for example, understood them as being the true driving force behind harmony generally.

It is certainly true that _in usage_ the inversions of a triad are not identical. I was not saying that they were. I was saying that their identification _as inversions of a triad_ is the important difference here. Like I said before, the concept of the triad includes the idea of an inversional relationship to a root. The "perfect harmony" included no such thing.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> No, you didn't. You pointed out a section in Zarlino where he was talking about something completely different, building different interval structures on a bass. As described, you would end up with two separate triads, not two inversions of a single triad.


Every example of perfect harmony has two acceptable forms and can be inverted into another example of perfect harmony - under inversion they all retain the essential quality, perfection, defining the category. Thus, every perfect harmony is invertible, which is exactly what I claimed. You claimed there was only one voicing Zarlino acknowledged. This was wrong.



Mahlerian said:


> No, roots are the perceptual basis of functional harmony, and Rameau, for example, understood them as being the true driving force behind harmony generally.


The German's didn't accept Rameau's theory. I believe they were scoffing at it well into the Classical Era. The general point is simplistic and does not account for musical practice. Roots are important to functional harmony. So is counterpoint and voice-leading (see examples below).



Mahlerian said:


> It is certainly true that _in usage_ the inversions of a triad are not identical. I was not saying that they were. I was saying that their identification _as inversions of a triad_ is the important difference here. Like I said before, the concept of the triad includes the idea of an inversional relationship to a root. The "perfect harmony" included no such thing.


You claimed they were the same in terms of function. This is incorrect. For example, IV in root position following V is problematic. IV6 following V is commonplace. As noted above III6 and VI6 (and I6/4) have virtually no independent function whatever. Look at any good theory book and you will find other examples.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Every example of perfect harmony has two acceptable forms and can be inverted into another example of perfect harmony - under inversion they all retain the essential quality, perfection, defining the category. Thus, every perfect harmony is invertible, which is exactly what I claimed. You claimed there was only one voicing Zarlino acknowledged. This was wrong.


Yes, but they would not be the same triad! The whole point is that the triad was not assumed to retain any part of its identity under a different inversion, which is still correct. While Zarlino would have identified both C-E-G and E-G-C to be perfect harmonies, he would not have related them to the same root. The passage you're referring to identified both C-E-G and C-E-A as being acceptable fundamental sonorities, with which I do not disagree. But it does not back up the idea that he considered a C major triad in root position and a C major triad in first inversion as being related by root, as theorists since have.

When I said there is only one voicing that Zarlino acknowledged, I did not mean that the 6 chord was not considered a perfect harmony as such, I meant that he would not have seen a 6 chord as sharing a part of its identity with the root position chord of the same root.

You are correct that functional representation is a simplified presentation of common practice, and I do not disagree that voice leading, counterpoint, etc. play a role in how these sonorities _work_ within a piece, but that is not part of _function_ as the term is normally defined. Functional harmony is a system of relating the roots of harmonies in progressions that work in a specific way.



> In the 15th and 16th centuries, major and minor triads became even more common by comparison to other possible pitch-class sets of cardinality three; in typical scores by Palestrina and Lassus, almost every sonority is a 5/3, or in modern terminology a major or minor triad in root position; 6/3 chords are remarkably unusual. This is all the more surprising when we consider that *Renaissance composers had no clear concept of triad, root, or inversion: they apparently did not consider the first inversion of a triad to be related to its root position, nor did they use this terminology.* Instead, they conceived of sonorities in terms of intervals above the bass (Fuller, 1986). They may simply have regarded the 5th above the bass as more consonant than the 6th, which privileged 5/3 chords over 6/3s (Väisälä, personal communication). In the history of music theory, *clear concepts of root and inversion first emerged in the early 17th century, for example in Lippius (1612)-over a century before Rameau (1722)*.


http://emusicology.org/article/view/3731/3399



> Note that in addition to the harmonic and arithmetic divisions of the fifth, Zarlino discusses sonorities "with the sixth in place of the fifth," that is, with a third plus a sixth above the bass - and *these are regarded as independent sonorities, not merely inversions of the form with the third and fifth*.


http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/triad.html


----------



## Xinver

In the zone I live there is an ancient tradition of phrygian (and phrygian dominant). I like it, it' as natural as tonal music.


----------



## Rhombic

People here are falling into analysing pre-Baroque music according to Baroque and even post-Baroque theory. There is a problem here: this is the same as attempting to analyse Schubert with the jazz understanding of chords - it just ends up being a mess that does not properly explain it, forcing the theory that is being used to give a reason for totally different things.

Oh, and, by the way, the Baroque fugue _should_ be divided into two main sections, NOT three. I'm not the first one to say this, and hopefully not the last one.


----------



## millionrainbows

Rhombic said:


> People here are falling into analysing pre-Baroque music according to Baroque and even post-Baroque theory. There is a problem here: this is the same as attempting to analyse Schubert with the jazz understanding of chords - it just ends up being a mess that does not properly explain it, forcing the theory that is being used to give a reason for totally different things.
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, the Baroque fugue _should_ be divided into two main sections, NOT three. I'm not the first one to say this, and hopefully not the last one.


Who's doing that? Who's right? Who are you referring to? Why don't you provide some useful input?

I had always thought that figured bass was just a shorthand; I didn't realize that it was a separate way of conceiving triads. I wish they'd explained that better when I took theory. 
What is this Rameau/German split? How did their theories differ?


----------

