# A music history/theory question that has always bothered me



## isorhythm

Since there seem to be many highly knowledgeable people here, maybe someone can point me in the right direction. The question is simple, but, to me, baffling:

Why is it that our major and minor modes are precisely the modes that _weren't_ included in the old church mode system? How on earth did that happen? Why didn't they use those modes, and why didn't the common practice composers use their modes?

No amount of consulting reference works/Googling has illuminated this for me.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I thought that the major and Ionian scales were the same thing, and that the Aeolian was almost the same as the minor.


----------



## isorhythm

MoonlightSonata said:


> I thought that the major and Ionian scales were the same thing, and that the Aeolian was almost the same as the minor.


They are, but the Ionian and Aeolian modes weren't recognized by the first church theorists. I don't think they became common until the 16th century.


----------



## Taggart

Basic answer is polyphony.

The modes are used for Gregorian chant. They aren't pure "scales" but have a whole range of techniques like reciting tone and ambitus to aid (monophonic) chant.

As people developed polyphony, they also developed a range of tricks to aid the generation of polyphonic music.You then run into problems of temperament - what *exactly* is a third, a fifth whatever. Once you get something like a meantone temperament then you can expand these basic rules.

The beauty of the major minor system is that the harmonies that work in one scale work in *any* scale. If you look at the wiki article on modes the summary has an interval table and the quality of an interval differs from mode to mode. Not so in common practice harmony, if you know major or minor you can rattle off the qualities of the interval - simple, no advanced skull work.

The development of polyphonic techniques and the beauty of polyphony led to a move to systematise the rules that eventually meant we moved from modes to scales with a simple set of rules for harmonies based on meantone temperaments.


----------



## EdwardBast

isorhythm said:


> Since there seem to be many highly knowledgeable people here, maybe someone can point me in the right direction. The question is simple, but, to me, baffling:
> 
> Why is it that our major and minor modes are precisely the modes that _weren't_ included in the old church mode system? How on earth did that happen? Why didn't they use those modes, and why didn't the common practice composers use their modes?
> 
> No amount of consulting reference works/Googling has illuminated this for me.


This summary and simplification of the extremely complex issues involved is from vague and unrefreshed memory, but I think this is basically right:

The church mode system adopted names used for similar purposes in Ancient Greek theory, where the names Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian were used, along with their "hypo" forms (Hypo-Dorian, Hypo-Phrygian, etc.). The interval structures of these modes (they didn't use the term mode, however) were known, but medieval theorists mistakenly assumed these interval structures were arranged bottom to top, the way we think of modern scales. In fact, high and low notes meant the opposite to the Greeks (because of the way high and low strings were arranged on an instrument called a kithera) and in the modes they described, the interval structures were arranged high to low. Alas, the medieval theorists, when they tried to transcribe the Greek mode system, turned the Greek modes upside down to get their Church mode equivalents. So the answer seems to be: historical accident. Had they transcribed the modes correctly, the system would have included at least what we know as the modern Aeolian. The church mode system was then used to classify an already existing body of chant and as the theoretical basis for continued improvising, composing, and codifying of chant.


----------



## Torkelburger

> The beauty of the major minor system is that the harmonies that work in one scale work in any scale. If you look at the wiki article on modes the summary has an interval table and the quality of an interval differs from mode to mode. Not so in common practice harmony, if you know major or minor you can rattle off the qualities of the interval - simple, no advanced skull work.


As was pointed out in our previous discussion on this subject, the "beauty" you are talking about is not specific to the major and minor system. The reason it works and has the feature you are discussing is not because of some magical property in the major or minor scale itself that modes do not have, but the fact that the major and minor scales are transposed. As was pointed out in the previous discussion, if you do the same to modes (allow them to be transposed), then the intervals and harmonies are all the same for each mode just as they are in major in minor you are talking about. You are incorrect in asserting that major and minor scales are special in this attribute I quoted above. Let me know if you would like for me to show this with examples with written music.


----------



## Taggart

If you *change key* (major minor system), I IV V works. If you *change mode*, then the qualities of the intervals can change. So you need to know *different *rules for each *mode* but the *same* rules apply to *all* scales.

Yes, if you allow transposition of modes, the rules stay the same regardless of where you start the mode; but if you change mode, then you can be into a different set of rules depending on the nature of the intervals.

Putting it another way all major scales have the same pattern of tones and semi tones; all minor scales have the same pattern of tones and semi tones; each mode has its own unique pattern of tones and semi tones.


----------



## Torkelburger

> If you *change key* (major minor system), I IV V works.


I don't understand the significance. Are you saying I IV V must be a functional chord progression in the scale or mode? If not, then you could change keys in modal systems and chord progressions (including varying tonic subdominant and dominant progressions) would work. So there still wouldn't be any significance in what your saying.



> If you *change mode*, then the qualities of the intervals can change. So you need to know *different *rules for each *mode* but the *same* rules apply to *all* scales.


Major and Minor scales do not have the same rules. And besides, you're comparing apples to oranges by talking about "changing modes".



> Yes, if you allow transposition of modes, the rules stay the same regardless of where you start the mode; but if you change mode, then you can be into a different set of rules depending on the nature of the intervals.


Same thing with a major and minor scale. And I still don't get this "changing" bit. It's a red herring to talk about "changing" anything. I mean, if you "change" *scales* then the qualities of the intervals change (ie melodic minor vs natural minor vs major, etc). Your point just falls flat to me.



> Putting it another way all major scales have the same pattern of tones and semi tones; all minor scales have the same pattern of tones and semi tones; each mode has its own unique pattern of tones and semi tones.


No, you could just as easily say a major scale (non-transposed) has its own unique pattern of tones and semi-tones and each mode (when transposed) has the same pattern of tones and semi-tones.


----------



## EdwardBast

Torkelburger said:


> I don't understand the significance. Are you saying I IV V must be a functional chord progression in the scale or mode? If not, then you could change keys in modal systems and chord progressions (including varying tonic subdominant and dominant progressions) would work. So there still wouldn't be any significance in what your saying.


There are no triads or functional harmonies in the church modal system, nor are there triads with tonal functions.



Torkelburger said:


> Major and Minor scales do not have the same rules. And besides, you're comparing apples to oranges by talking about "changing modes".


Not exactly the same rules, but they do have the same tonal functions associated with most of the scale degrees; ii and iv are still subdominant, V is dominant. Different pitches serve as reciting tone in different church modes. In other words, the Aeolian and Ionian modes (in their 16th century formulation, obviously) are more different than the modern major and minor modes.


----------



## Torkelburger

> There are no triads or functional harmonies in the church modal system, nor are there triads with tonal functions.


I was speaking hypothetically and in the case of Taggart speaking in that context (if he was).



> Not exactly the same rules, but they do have the same tonal functions associated with most of the scale degrees; ii and iv are still subdominant, V is dominant. Different pitches serve as reciting tone in different church modes. In other words, the Aeolian and Ionian modes (in their 16th century formulation, obviously) are more different than the modern major and minor modes.


You're moving the goalposts. He said "the same rules apply". They do not. You do not harmonize the tonic in a major scale with a minor triad as you do a minor scale, for example. Does not matter that you call them both a "tonic". That's equivalent to (modern) modal theory of harmonizing the tonics of different modes with different values or "rules".

And you are dead wrong. V is NOT DOMINANT in a minor scale as it is in a major scale. It has to be deliberately *altered* to be dominant.


----------



## isorhythm

But any modal scale can be transposed freely...

I have some half-baked theories. One is that the major and minor modes became important because they both produce a strong pull to the tonic. The Mixolydian mode is arguably more "natural" than the major because the flat seventh is more closely related to the tonic, via the overtone series or circle of fifths. So when you make it sharp, you introduce an inherent instability into the scale that wants to resolve.

The minor is maybe also more strongly pulled toward the tonic than the Dorian because of its flat sixth, which "wants" to resolve down. Add in the major V chord and you have a very, very strong tonic pull. Maybe in the middle ages and early renaissance, they didn't like these instabilities pulling toward the tonic, and then later they decided they did?

But this is all speculative. There's also the fact that the church modes used Bb sometimes, which makes Dorian minor and Lydian major; Wikipedia also says some early theorists saw the Ionian and Aeolian as just the Mixolydian and Dorian ending on the "wrong" final. (I believe some Palestrina compositions support this view.) Anyway I still am puzzled as to why music evolved in that particular way.


----------



## Taggart

Quod scripsi scripsi.


----------



## EdwardBast

Torkelburger said:


> I was speaking hypothetically and in the case of Taggart speaking in that context (if he was).
> 
> You're moving the goalposts. He said "the same rules apply". They do not. You do not harmonize the tonic in a major scale with a minor triad as you do a minor scale, for example. Does not matter that you call them both a "tonic". That's equivalent to (modern) modal theory of harmonizing the tonics of different modes with different values or "rules".
> 
> And you are dead wrong. V is NOT DOMINANT in a minor scale as it is in a major scale. It has to be deliberately *altered* to be dominant.


In common practice music that alteration is taken for granted. Of course one has to write a sharp (or natural) in figured bass, but this does not make a minor chord on the fifth degree standard. It is not. Minor mode isn't really based in a scale the way major mode is. It is a whole complex of different melodic and harmonic practices for different situations, a compromise between features of the major and minor systems balancing various harmonic and melodic demands


----------



## Piwikiwi

Torkelburger said:


> I was speaking hypothetically and in the case of Taggart speaking in that context (if he was).
> 
> You're moving the goalposts. He said "the same rules apply". They do not. You do not harmonize the tonic in a major scale with a minor triad as you do a minor scale, for example. Does not matter that you call them both a "tonic". That's equivalent to (modern) modal theory of harmonizing the tonics of different modes with different values or "rules".
> 
> And you are dead wrong. V is NOT DOMINANT in a minor scale as it is in a major scale. It has to be deliberately *altered* to be dominant.


That depends on which minor scale you use.


----------



## Torkelburger

EdwardBast said:


> In common practice music that alteration is taken for granted. Of course one has to write a sharp (or natural) in figured bass, but this does not make a minor chord on the fifth degree standard. It is not. Minor mode isn't really based in a scale the way major mode is. It is a whole complex of different melodic and harmonic practices for different situations, a compromise between features of the major and minor systems balancing various harmonic and melodic demands


As in the previous thread on this topic, you continue to assign the USAGE of the scale (how it is used) with the PROPERTIES of the scale. It doesn't matter if monks, say, only sang the sixth degree of any scale one time per chant due to some fear of the number six, for example. That does not become a property of the scale. A minor chord on the fifth degree of the scale is a property of the scale. If you want to change it to suit your major scale fetish, than you have to alter that property, thereby destroying the "beauty" aspect of this discussion IMHO (one of many examples I could name).


----------



## Torkelburger

Piwikiwi said:


> That depends on which minor scale you use.


Usually when we say minor scale, by default we mean natural minor, but I can be more specific in the future if you'd like.


----------



## isorhythm

His point was the minor mode isn't just a scale.


----------



## EdwardBast

Torkelburger said:


> As in the previous thread on this topic, you continue to assign the USAGE of the scale (how it is used) with the PROPERTIES of the scale. It doesn't matter if monks, say, only sang the sixth degree of any scale one time per chant due to some fear of the number six, for example. That does not become a property of the scale. A minor chord on the fifth degree of the scale is a property of the scale. If you want to change it to suit your major scale fetish, than you have to alter that property, thereby destroying the "beauty" aspect of this discussion IMHO (one of many examples I could name).


This thread is not about scales. It is about modes. From their inception, the modes were not scales, not abstract collections of pitches, but were defined according to their USAGE (range, reciting tones, and so on). Thus the Dorian and Hypodorian have the same notes. What makes them different is precisely the USAGE of those notes - different reciting tones, different ranges. The minor mode in common practice music is not equated with or reducible to any one of the three minor scales. Like the medieval modes, it is defined by USAGE. A major triad on the fifth degree is the default in the use of the minor mode in the common practice period. The default mediant chord is major, meaning it uses a different seventh degree than the default dominant. These USAGES are not neatly accommodated by any one of the minor scales. (The so-called melodic minor doesn't cover it because whether the sharped or natural form is used does not depend on the melodic direction-the so-called ascending and descending forms.)


----------



## Piwikiwi

isorhythm said:


> His point was the minor mode isn't just a scale.


I think of minor (a minor) as if it contains these notes A/B/C/D/E/F/F#/G/G# and the 6th and 7th are optionally major or minor. That is also how it is used.


----------



## Torkelburger

> The minor mode in common practice music is not equated with or reducible to any one of the three minor scales.


One must then wonder why they even bothered with the categorization. Pointless academic exercise, I guess. Odd, that.


----------



## EdwardBast

Torkelburger said:


> One must then wonder why they even bothered with the categorization. Pointless academic exercise, I guess. Odd, that.


It seems that way if one thinks that "scale" and "mode" should be synonymous. Jazz players tend to use the terms in this way. But the term "minor mode" serves several practical purposes: First, since it is the most important conventional way to write something expressively contrasting with the major mode, one has to call it something, right? And the minor scales are a practical necessity for instrumentalists working toward fluency with this important set of materials too. Both terms serve practical but different purposes, therefore. And western classical music isn't the only music for which this kind of distinction between modes and scales in the abstract is made. Indian classical music makes this distinction, I believe (I'm not an ethnomusicologist) and there are probably other cultures in which this is the case(?)


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> This summary and simplification of the extremely complex issues involved is from vague and unrefreshed memory, but I think this is basically right:
> 
> The church mode system adopted names used for similar purposes in Ancient Greek theory, where the names Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian were used, along with their "hypo" forms (Hypo-Dorian, Hypo-Phrygian, etc.). The interval structures of these modes (they didn't use the term mode, however) were known, but medieval theorists mistakenly assumed these interval structures were arranged bottom to top, the way we think of modern scales. In fact, high and low notes meant the opposite to the Greeks (because of the way high and low strings were arranged on an instrument called a kithera) and in the modes they described, the interval structures were arranged high to low. Alas, the medieval theorists, when they tried to transcribe the Greek mode system, turned the Greek modes upside down to get their Church mode equivalents. So the answer seems to be: historical accident. Had they transcribed the modes correctly, the system would have included at least what we know as the modern Aeolian. The church mode system was then used to classify an already existing body of chant and as the theoretical basis for continued improvising, composing, and codifying of chant.


Oh, okay, so the whole medieval church mode system is based on a big, all-encompassing *mistake?* I have suspected this all along. :lol: No wonder this esoteric, stilted, theoretically rigid system of chant is so hard to understand.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> One must then wonder why they even bothered with the categorization. Pointless academic exercise, I guess. Odd, that.


That's why they wrote everything in Latin as well, so nobody except academics would be able to decipher it.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, okay, so the whole medieval church mode system is based on a big, all-encompassing *mistake?* I have suspected this all along. :lol: No wonder this esoteric, stilted, theoretically rigid system of chant is so hard to understand.


The mistake at its basis is trivial and beside the point, unless one has strong feelings about how the music of Phrygia should sound. And it doesn't really matter if a few medieval theorists mistakenly thought they were reproducing the ancient Greek system. All that matters is whether or not the system they developed works in organizing and describing the music to which it was applied.

Your further characterizations are ill-considered or simply wrong. The system is in no way esoteric. Every defining concept of the system (reciting tones, finals, ranges, etc.) describes objective and readily identifiable features of Gregorian Chant. There really were, for example, chants with E finals that had different ranges and reciting tones (Phrygian and Hypophrygian modes). Nor is the system more rigid than any other theoretical system. The few broad categories were rather flexible; Theorists recognized the existence of chants that don't neatly fall into the standard categories. Most important, the system is not at all hard to understand. There are just a few easy and clearly defined concepts that will make sense to anyone who spends a little time with the actual music. If you want a difficult system, you should try ancient Greek theory. You will quickly see why the medieval theorists had trouble getting it right.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> That's why they wrote everything in Latin as well, so nobody except academics would be able to decipher it.


These academics were often monks in monasteries scattered across a continent where many different languages and dialects were spoken. A common academic language was pretty much a necessity for establishing and regularizing the musical liturgy in which the modal system flourished. Not everything academics do is about making the uninitiated feel inferior.


----------



## millionrainbows

Nobody has really offered a clear, definitive answer.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Why is it that our major and minor modes are precisely the modes that _weren't_ included in the old church mode system? How on earth did that happen? Why didn't they use those modes, and why didn't the common practice composers use their modes?


As they told you, major (Ionian) and minor (aolean) are those modes; what you don't seem to grasp is that in the era of modes, harmony did not yet exist, so the modes were used strictly melodically, with their own set of conventions about where to start and where to finish a phrase. Also, the theoretical Locrian mode (B to B) was rarely, if ever, used, since it had an unstable fifth (B to F, a tritone).

A major or minor scale is a completely different thing. These can be used more freely.


----------



## Xinver

_Why is it that our major and minor modes are precisely the modes that weren't included in the old church mode system? How on earth did that happen? Why didn't they use those modes, and why didn't the common practice composers use their modes?_

They didn't use major/minor because they didn't exist yet.
Why didn't Chopin use dodecaphonic rows? Because they didn' exist in his time.

Ionian is not the same than major.
Eolian is not tha same than minor.

The difference is that major/minor have tonal functions (tonic-subdominant-dominant) while modes (eclesiastic) have not.
So, you can write something in ionian (not major), in fact, it was usual in the Middel Ages.
Modality has cadential chords (to the tonic) that are different from dominant chords in major/minor.

Besides, modal music is mainly horizontal, and it has not "avoid notes" in any chord, which is what happens in tonal music.

C major: G7 is dominant
C ionian: Dm is cadential (avoid G7 - C because it will sound major, not ionian).

A minor: E7 is dominant (in a natural/harmonic/melodic context)
A eolian: F is cadential, (better than G7 - Am, which reminds of major).


----------



## isorhythm

Xinver said:


> _Why is it that our major and minor modes are precisely the modes that weren't included in the old church mode system? How on earth did that happen? Why didn't they use those modes, and why didn't the common practice composers use their modes?_
> 
> They didn't use major/minor because they didn't exist yet.


Yes, I am aware. My question (last year) was why the two scales on which our tonal system is based are not found among the church modes, not why people in the 16th century didn't write in the tonal system. Lots of point-missing in this thread.

Anyway EdwardBast's answer was illuminating. I've also since done more of my own reading on this and it's not so mysterious anymore.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> As they told you, major (Ionian) and minor (aolean) are those modes; what you don't seem to grasp is that in the era of modes, harmony did not yet exist, so the modes were used strictly melodically, with their own set of conventions about where to start and where to finish a phrase..


No, to the limited extent this is true, I grasp it just fine.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> No, to the limited extent this is true, I grasp it just fine.


In your reply to Xinver, who offered a clear explanation, you seemed to deflect that answer as being off-point. You still give the impression that you are unaware that "modal" music is strictly melodic, and not tonal. Modes are not scales, so your original question is somewhat flawed if you are asking why 2 scales are not used in a modal system. Now I'm confused as to what your question is, and I think you should re-state it.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Your further characterizations are ill-considered or simply wrong. The system is in no way esoteric.


I think it is obscure, speaking generally, and I don't think educators take the time to explain the crucial differences between chant and tonality.



> Every defining concept of the system (reciting tones, finals, ranges, etc.) describes objective and readily identifiable features of Gregorian Chant. There really were, for example, chants with E finals that had different ranges and reciting tones (Phrygian and Hypophrygian modes).


That's true, but what is overlooked are the big, fat, "elephant in the room" differences in melodic/modal music and scale-based tonality. It's always the "simple" things that get overlooked. That's why it's crucial to always question and probe the most basic "givens."

If modes and chant were as easy and obvious to understand, I would have known this years earlier, and Isorhythm wouldn't have created this thread.



> Nor is the system more rigid than any other theoretical system. The few broad categories were rather flexible; Theorists recognized the existence of chants that don't neatly fall into the standard categories.


I disagree, since the development of harmony was a gradual process, with all the Renaissance "in between" exceptions which really confuse things.



> Most important, the system is not at all hard to understand. There are just a few easy and clearly defined concepts that will make sense to anyone who spends a little time with the actual music.


While that is true, it is misleading if one does not understand the basic "meta-concept" of the difference between a strictly melodic system vs. a tonal system. That's what _you_ seem to be missing in your eagerness to emphasize how "easy" this all is.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> As they told you, major (Ionian) and minor (aolean) are those modes; what you don't seem to grasp is that in the era of modes, harmony did not yet exist, so the modes were used strictly melodically, with their own set of conventions about where to start and where to finish a phrase. Also, the theoretical Locrian mode (B to B) was rarely, if ever, used, since it had an unstable fifth (B to F, a tritone).
> 
> A major or minor scale is a completely different thing. These can be used more freely.


There is virtual nothing correct in this post. The modal system was in use until 1,600 and beyond, so there were at least 700 years where harmony, as the poor relative of counterpoint, was in play. There was no Locrian mode theoretical or otherwise. That is a 20thc invention. And the reason it wasn't considered viable and wasn't used had nothing to do with the tritone, which the Lydian and Hypolyidian also had. It was because the pitch B/B-flat was unstable and variable and subject to constant alteration.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> In your reply to Xinver, who offered a clear explanation, you seemed to deflect that answer as being off-point. You still give the impression that you are unaware that "modal" music is strictly melodic, and not tonal. Modes are not scales, so your original question is somewhat flawed if you are asking why 2 scales are not used in a modal system. Now I'm confused as to what your question is, and I think you should re-state it.


Xinver's post is full of errors. The "quasi-dominants" he proposes for the modes are all incorrect. Everyone but you understood Isorhythm's OP.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> And the reason it wasn't considered viable and wasn't used had nothing to do with the tritone, which the Lydian and Hypolyidian also had. It was because the pitch B/B-flat was unstable and variable and subject to constant alteration.


You conveniently forgot to mention that the Lydian not only has a tritone, but also a fifth. The fifth gives it the stability that the Locrian lacks.

Yes, I know the Locrian was not a practical mode, and was not used.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Xinver's post is full of errors. The "quasi-dominants" he proposes for the modes are all incorrect. Everyone but you understood Isorhythm's OP, blah,blah...


The OP is flawed. Scales can't be compared to modes. What was the question?


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> The OP is flawed. Scales can't be compared to modes. What was the question?


He wanted to know why the Ionian and Aeolian modes, those (arguably) closest to the modern major and minor modes, were not part of the church mode system. It is a reasonable question since, in modern times, they are both of central importance. Do you really not get that?

Of course, effectively, the transposed Ionian was in use from the Ars Nova on, since the 7th degree in Mixolydian mode was sharped much of the time through musica ficta and the 4th degree in Lydian was frequently flatted. Moreover, the transposed Mixolyidian on C with B natural was common before the Ionian was added to the church modes.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> He wanted to know why the Ionian and Aeolian modes, those (arguably) closest to the modern major and minor modes, were not part of the church mode system. It is a reasonable question since, in modern times, they are both of central importance. Do you really not get that, blah,blah…


Well, you just said it. The Ionian and Aeolian modes didn't really exist as conceptual entities, but only as transposed forms of other modes, with alterations.



> Of course, effectively, the transposed Ionian was in use from the Ars Nova on, since the 7th degree in Mixolydian mode was sharped much of the time through musica ficta and the 4th degree in Lydian was frequently flatted. Moreover, the transposed Mixolyidian on C with B natural was common before the Ionian was added to the church modes.


Well then, you've answered the question.


----------

