# Modes versus Keys?



## Abracadabra

Everyone is no doubt familiar with the major and minor modes. As well as the concepts of major and minor "keys". 

Every major key has its relative minor key and vice versa. 

But what about all the other modes?

For example, if C major is considered to be a major key and Am is the relative minor of C major, what does this tell us?

Well, for one thing it tells us that in musical notion they are both going to have the same key signature on the staff because they use precisely the same collections of notes. The only difference is that they have different tonal centers which also results in them having different interval steps between notes when playing a 'scale' from one tonal center to the next. (i.e. between every octave)

However, this also applies to all the other modes. 

In other words, if key of C major uses a key signature that has no sharps and uses the Ionian scale and harmonies built from that scale. And if the key of A minor uses the same key signature but the only difference is that it uses the Aeolian scale and harmonies built from that scale, then,....

Wouldn't D Dorian also be consider to be a "Key" that uses the same key signature with the only difference being that it uses the Dorian scale and harmonies build from that scale,... and so, for Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, and Locrian?

In other words, wouldn't all of these different modes also be considered to be "Keys" in their own right. Neither major nor minor but something else?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm currently studying "modes" and trying to understand how they might be recognized in sheet music. 

I mean, if a song is written in D Dorian it would have the same "key signature" as the key of C major (i.e. no sharps or flats), the only difference is that it would use the Dorian scale and chords built from the Dorian mode?

Is that right?

How could you tell that this piece was "Dorian" rather than C major or A minor? 
Just by the notes used in the melody of the piece?
Would the piece most likely resolve to a tonal center of D? In stead of C or A?

And would it actually be said to be in the key of D Dorian? 

Is there such a thing as the Key of D Dorian?

Or would they just say that it's actually the Key of C major being played in "Dorian Mode"?

I'm trying to get a handle on understanding modes better. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

A song written in D Dorian will center around, ta-da, 'D.' It will start and end, most likely, in D Dorian.

"Mode" is the base word for Modulation. Modulation is a shift / change of mode.

If you started a piece in C (Ionic) and shifted to A (Aeolian) you will have modulated from C (Major) to A (Minor). Modulation in a modal piece works the same way. The difference, musically to our ears and showing in an analysis, is that A is either 'A = i = tonic'; or 'A = vi = submediant.' The application would be the same writing in any of the other modes, the tonic = i, all other harmony to 'work' in context with that.

Because we often first learn the modes most handily from the white key arrangement of the piano, it is later too easy to still think of them all as 'white key' scales. It is best from that initial learning to know the arrangement of whole and half steps characteristic of each.

C# Dorian, Eb Dorian are still Dorian: there is no need to 'relate' them to D. The varying modes and scales characteristic sound and behavior have to do with the different arrangement of their whole and half-steps. 

Key Signature. If there are no accidentals, How can you tell if a piece is in C major or A minor from just a glance at a signature? You can not. It could bein any of the modes set in their white key dispositions. (That Db major signature could be a piece in Eb Dorian or F Phrygian!)

You have to look at / listen to the musical content in its context to determine the key -- the only way to tell.


----------



## Abracadabra

PetrB said:


> You have to look at / listen to the musical content in its context to determine the key -- the only way to tell.


Ok, that's what I'm learning. 

I kind of suspected as much, but it's nice to have these suspicions confirmed.


----------



## Romantic Geek

I think your confusion is centered around your terminology:

Keys refer to major/minor.
Modes refer to Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian.

Major and Ionian are not equivalent! The same as Minor and Aeolian are not equivalent. Far from it actually...and that's a huge misunderstanding by many musicians. A good example of a piece in Ionian but not in major would be the opening of Rake's Progress. Harmonies and melodies would be constructed differently in Ionian pieces than in major pieces.

For Dorian, English folk songs are a very common source. Look at pieces by Vaughan Williams for instance. I think the most classic example of Dorian is "I Saw Three Ships." It would be incorrect to call that a minor key piece. It is a minor _mode_ piece (defined by its minor third from the tonic).

As the above hints, there are major modes (Ionian, Lydian, Mixolydian) and minor modes (Dorian, Aeolian) defined by the opening three notes relating to major and minor keys. Of course, there is a third option: Phrygian modes (Phrygian and Locrian) which contain a different set of opening three notes compared to major and minor modes.

However, your point about key signatures is valid. Yes, key signatures will be the same. But it is important to note that pieces can be composed either in keys _or_ modes (and of course...no keys or modes).


----------



## Moira

Thank you Romantic Geek. I have never seen such a good explanation of the modes before.


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> I think your confusion is centered around your terminology:
> However, your point about key signatures is valid. Yes, key signatures will be the same. But it is important to note that pieces can be composed either in keys _or_ modes (and of course...no keys or modes).


Ok, thank you very much for your deeper explanation. I fully understand what you are saying and I agree.

I was actually asking the question more in terms of "music notation" rather than in terms of the deeper theory and philosophy that you've shared. From score alone these things cannot be determined. That was an "insight" into notation that just recently struck me rather vividly.

I was also thinking 'technically' in terms of things like the "Wheel of Fifths". Typically the Wheel of Fifths displays the major and minor (modes or keys) as being 'relatives'. The most common example being of course, C Major and A Minor.

What I was starting to realize is that, from a purely technical perspective, using that same kind of technical scheme, one could ultimate create a more complex "circle of fifths" that included all the "relative modes".

In other words, C Major, would have the "relative modes" of D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, and B Locrian (hope I got those all right).

It would be a very complex (or complete) wheel of fifths, but it might be helpful if a person is interested in modulating between these various modes?

The reason all of this came to me is because I'm beginning to study modulation and modulation techniques and I'm realizing that it may not be limited to just modulating between the major and minor "keys", but similar processes may actually apply to "modulation between modes" (if that's even a valid musical concept?)

You'll have to excuse me because I'm entirely self-learning and so I'm not aware of things that may be apparent to people who have dedicated their lives to a career in music.

I'm just trying to get a "technical" handle on how the modes may be related to each other, especially in terms of how I might go about "modulating" (or transforming) the music from one harmonic mode into another.

This is the fundamental reason I posed the question.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> It would be a very complex (or complete) wheel of fifths, but it might be helpful if a person is interested in modulating between these various modes?
> 
> The reason all of this came to me is because I'm beginning to study modulation and modulation techniques and I'm realizing that it may not be limited to just modulating between the major and minor "keys", but similar processes may actually apply to "modulation between modes" (if that's even a valid musical concept?)
> 
> You'll have to excuse me because I'm entirely self-learning and so I'm not aware of things that may be apparent to people who have dedicated their lives to a career in music.
> 
> I'm just trying to get a "technical" handle on how the modes may be related to each other, especially in terms of how I might go about "modulating" (or transforming) the music from one harmonic mode into another.
> 
> This is the fundamental reason I posed the question.


Well modulation really only happens in the context of tonality and not modality because of the syntax of the language. You can mix modes however, and this was employed as early as the Renaissance, typically called commixture. But it's not modulation but rather a mixing of the characteristics of the mode. This is pretty complicated, but anyone with experience listening and hearing the characteristics between the different modes would understand what I mean. For instance, it's very clear that Phrygian and Dorian are not the same mode when emphasizing certain intervals or notes.

However, I doubt you're looking for Renaissance ways of dealing with the modes...so I will go on the other side of things. I'll use a great piece for an example: Michael Torke's "Yellow Pages" 




In this piece, Torke introduces new sharps to a basic pattern and essentially cycles through modes. After adding enough sharps, the original passage is moved up a whole step. Some of these different modes are quite audible, others are maybe not as much.

As far as the circle/wheel of fifths, you can throw out that idea. That's something that's unique to the language of tonality. If you attempt to use something like that in your compositions, you're going to start writing tonal music. In modal space, you can work either on the same "key" signature (i.e. C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, and B Locrian) or the same tonic pitch (C Ionian [no b/#], C Dorian [2b], C Phrygian [4b], C Lydian [1#], C Mixolydian [1b], C Aeolian [3b], and C Locrian [5b])

Does this make sense?


----------



## Abracadabra

Unfortunately I'm on a dial-up Internet connection at home, so I'll have to wait until I can get over to the library to listen to the youtube example you've provided.

In the meantime I'd like to make some comments on the following:



Romantic Geek said:


> As far as the circle/wheel of fifths, you can throw out that idea. That's something that's unique to the language of tonality. If you attempt to use something like that in your compositions, you're going to start writing tonal music.


I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. Does using modes other than Ionian and Aeolian mean that tonality must be abandoned? And, if so, what would that mean?

In my quite naive and uneducated mind, I was assuming that I could use all the modes whilst writing "tonal" music. In fact, I'm not even sure what it means to not write tonal music other than to write "atonal" music, which is not my intent.

I confess that I'm only just now starting to explore how I might employ additional modes in my musical compositions, but I was assuming that I could do that within the context of tonal music. So this is why I'm not understanding what you are saying when you say, "You're going to start writing tonal music". From my perspective, that's exactly what I am hoping to do (at least as opposed to writing atonal music).



Romantic Geek said:


> In modal space, you can work either on the same "key" signature (i.e. C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, and B Locrian) or the same tonic pitch (C Ionian [no b/#], C Dorian [2b], C Phrygian [4b], C Lydian [1#], C Mixolydian [1b], C Aeolian [3b], and C Locrian [5b])
> 
> Does this make sense?


This is actually getting a bit closer to what I'm attempting to discover.

For example:

*"you can work on the same "key" signature (i.e. C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, and B Locrian)"*

Ok, that's one approach that I'm hoping to play around with and see how that goes. In this case, when actually writing out the music I won't need to change the key signature at any point in the music. All I'll be changing is the "mode". It seems to me that when writing such music I should at least make a "note" (i.e. a comment) where I've changed modes, because there won't be any noticeable key signature change.

I'm also wondering how I will actually implement that change in terms of the harmony accompaniment to the melody? Will I be using different chords when I change modes? And if so, how will those chords differ from the C Major chord set (assuming I'm writing this in the key signature of C Major).

Will this change be dramatic? Will it sound like a "modulation" of any kind? (i.e. moving to a new harmonic place?) From what you've just said, it won't be a modulation, but just a modal change. So I won't really be moving to a new harmonic place. Just a different modal feel?

Please bear with me because this is all new to me and I haven't really listen to, or composed, any examples yet. (partly because I'm not even quite sure how to get started with this type of thing)

Now you also say:

*"or the same tonic pitch (C Ionian [no b/#], C Dorian [2b], C Phrygian [4b], C Lydian [1#], C Mixolydian [1b], C Aeolian [3b], and C Locrian [5b])"*

I thought about this as being a possibility too. However, if I were to make these kinds of changes when writing the score I would need to use key signature changes (either that or use a load of accidentals).

In other words, if the music is going along in C Ionian I'd be using the C Major key signature (i.e. no key signature at all), but then if I made the transition into C Dorian I'd have to change the key signature to Bb? Wouldn't I? Isn't C Dorian based on Bb Ionian?

This would actually show up in the score as a key signature change, you could visually tell that something had changed. And surely the effect would be quite different from the previous example above as well. Would this still not be a modulation to a new harmonic place? Surely the accompaniment chords would need to change radically too (I would think).

And then we have yet a third possibility. And that would be the possibility that we're moving from something like C Ionian, to say G Dorian. Now we're in a mode that is not directly related to C Ionian in any way. So in a sense we've changed "keys" altogether as well as modes. Surely in that case we'd need to make a harmonic or tonal modulation as well as the mode change?

~~~

Don't worry too much about trying to explain every detail. I'm just toying with different thoughts right now and trying to get a handle on how to make modal changes as well as harmonic modulation, and what it takes to accomplish these different processes.

In the meantime, I'll run over to the library and download the video example you've provided and see if I can understand what they are doing with modes.


----------



## SuperTonic

It seems like you are trying to create an analogy between tonality and modality that does not actually exist in the actual practice of composing on those "styles". They are two very different things.

I am going to assume that when talking about modality, you are referring to the modal practice that was mainly in use by composers who were active in the early to middle part of the 20th century. Modal counterpoint from the Rennesaince era is something else entirely, but at that point no one knew anything of tonality as we understand it because it hadn't developed or codified yet.

Tonality as it was practiced during the common practice era was much more than just the major and minor scales. Those are certainly part of it, but not the whole picture. To generalize in the extreme, you can think of tonality as a method of writing music in which dissonant combinations of tones tend to resolve to consonant combinations of tones in very specific ways that are intended to emphasis a specific tonal center, or key. In that context, for melodies, the entire chromatic scale is actually in play, not just the notes of the major or minr scale. You can write non-diatonic ornamental notes into your melodies without weakening the tonal center as long as your harmonies are well written.

In contrast, modality is strictly a melodic way of writing. There really isn't any such thing as "modal harmony" since it would be indestinguishable from tonal harmony. In modal writing, it is very important that the pattern of whole steps and half steps are preserved in relation to the tonic, because that it all that defines the mode. To contrast the example given above, you would want to avoid using notes outside of the mode as much as possible. 
In tonal music, the most important melodic relationship is the leading tone to the tonic. This is how you strongly establish a key via melody in a tonal context. But the only modes that have natural leading tones are the Ionian and the Lydian. You cannot establish a strictly melodic tonal center as defined in tonal harmony with the other modes without altering them in such a way that destroys the very essence of what modality is. The problem with the Lydian mode has to do with the placement of the tritone in relation to the tonic note. Having the subdominant root a tritone away from the tonic root makes for some awkward chord progressions since the subdominant is a reltavily imporant chord in a tonal context. Also, going back to the Rennaissance, composers would frequently lower the 4th step of the Lydian mode to avoid the "diabola in musica" (tritone) that it created with the tonic, which essentially turns it into the Ionian mode.

Remember that at the same time as composers were experimenting with modality during the early 20th century, they were also experimenting with new types of harmonies as well. Dissonances were treated much more freely, and it was not uncommon to have more than one tonal center in play at any given time. Those composers were not thinking of extending traditional tonal harmonic practice with their modal writing. Instead they were trying to develop entirely new forms of musical expression.


----------



## Abracadabra

SuperTonic said:


> It seems like you are trying to create an analogy between tonality and modality that does not actually exist in the actual practice of composing on those "styles". They are two very different things.


Ok, maybe it's not actually "tonality" in the purest sense that I'm trying to get at. But on another site it was suggested that if you want to write a piece of music in, say Dorian Mode, to do that successfully (according to them), you need to embellish the chords of the harmony. You can't get a convincing Dorian Mode by just playing a Dorian scale over a straight C-Major harmony. (at least that was their position)

I'm not sure if "embellishing chords" amounts to changing their "tonality". In other words, if they are still rooted in C, then the root tonality hasn't changed. However, the overall "harmony" has changed since the chords are being embellished with specific additional notes.

So when I speak of modifying the "Harmony" I'm not necessarily saying that it must change in "Tonality", but it changes in other subtle ways.

This is just my understanding thus far. Like I say, I'm just trying to learn this stuff so I'm just sharing my impressions of what needs to be dealt with.



SuperTonic said:


> In contrast, modality is strictly a melodic way of writing. There really isn't any such thing as "modal harmony" since it would be indestinguishable from tonal harmony. In modal writing, it is very important that the pattern of whole steps and half steps are preserved in relation to the tonic, because that it all that defines the mode. To contrast the example given above, you would want to avoid using notes outside of the mode as much as possible.


Ok, I understand the importance of emphasizing the melodic structure of the desired mode. But I'm not totally convinced that there is no such thing as "modal harmony" (although that term itself may not be a valid or recognized term).

But to try to convey what I'm talking about, let's think about the blues. When creating blues music say in "C Major" the tendency is to use 7th chords, or 9th chords, or 11th chords, etc. That's not really changing the "tonality" of the music (I mean the music is still totally centered on the root of C). But it's colored with these additional 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, or whatever.

That's "dealing with harmony" in ways that may not have anything to do directly with "tonality"?

I'm thinking that similar things are required to really bring out the character of various modes?

And, of course, the other forum where I read about this seemed to feel this was important too.

I referred to that concept as "modal harmony", just for lack of a better term. But surely there are harmonic methods to emphasis or "bring out" the feeling of certain modes?

Or is that a totally different thing altogether that has nothing to do with modes?

Are you basically saying that the harmony can be adjusted anyway you like, and some people may simply be viewing that as a way to emphasis what they see as the character or 'feel' of a particular mode?

Maybe I'm just confusing artistic creativity with "music theory".

~~~~

So my conclusion from what you're saying would be the following:

To change modes all I need to do is change the structure of the melody. Then if I want to embellish harmonies on top of that to create a certain mood, I'm free to do so, but it's not really being dictated by the mode change. It's just my own artistic freedom?

That's actually better since all "rules" go out the window then. Makes it easier and more versatile for me.


----------



## Romantic Geek

> Maybe I'm just confusing artistic creativity with "music theory".


There is no such thing. That is only the opinion of those who see theory as obstructing musicality rather than supplementing it.



> To change modes all I need to do is change the structure of the melody. Then if I want to embellish harmonies on top of that to create a certain mood, I'm free to do so, but it's not really being dictated by the mode change.


For the most part, yes. You'll feel a change of modes much stronger through restructuring of the melody versus restructuring of the harmony.

As far "modal harmony," SuperTonic is correct that there is not really such a thing as modal harmony in the context of Renaissance music (although, that may be questionable with some of the later Renaissance composers like Gesualdo and Victoria). In the 20th-century, when composers started to really explore the modes again, they were not bound to just major and minor triads. Nevertheless, some composers for the most part did use those types of harmonies in a modal context (see Vaughan Williams).

And at this point, I need to stress that Ionian does not equal major, Aeolian does not equal minor (and vice versa). I noticed in the last few posts that you made this error again. Yes, they contain similar structures, but major and minor keys have a specific context that they are used. Ionian and Aeolian are not bound by those same contexts. For instance, using a C major scale without employing the harmonic functions (usually as determined by the circle of fifths) would probably result in more C Ionian music than C major music.

But I think you're asking about several progressions that maybe suggest a mode. Here are a few that you usually see: Dorian, the bVII-i motion is pretty common as a dominant to tonic relationship. For example, in D Dorian, a progression from C major to D minor. In Lydian, II-I is used as a cadential gesture (a recent paper at Music Theory Midwest shows how this progression is common in Lydian rock music of the 70s). So in F Lydian, the progression from G major to F major. But as far as a syntax for modes versus major/minor keys, it is far looser and not really anything that could be easily described.

Now...all "rules" don't go out the windows. Remember, you may think you're composing something in Dorian when it actually is more Aeolian (etc.) so if you're going for a specific mode, you'll need to emphasize the characteristic notes/intervals of that mode to cease confusion.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Can't be bothered reading this whole thread. 

Atonality anyone?


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> There is no such thing. That is only the opinion of those who see theory as obstructing musicality rather than supplementing it.


I can certainly understand that. Being a scientist I tend to view "theory" as merely an explanation of something. Not necessarily rules to follow. Just the same if a theory can offer guidance as a "tool" that can be helpful, then it can become a useful theory. My desire to understand "music theory" is certainly as a tool, rather than as a constraint.



Romantic Geek said:


> For the most part, yes. You'll feel a change of modes much stronger through restructuring of the melody versus restructuring of the harmony.


I'm starting to realize this from examples of modes I've been looking at on the net. And in a sense you could say that this is part of "theory". In other words, it's a recognition and understanding that melody plays a larger role in establishing the feel of modes that does harmony. (i.e. an observation or explanation of the way things are. Not necessarily a "rule".)



Romantic Geek said:


> And at this point, I need to stress that Ionian does not equal major, Aeolian does not equal minor (and vice versa). I noticed in the last few posts that you made this error again. Yes, they contain similar structures, but major and minor keys have a specific context that they are used. Ionian and Aeolian are not bound by those same contexts. For instance, using a C major scale without employing the harmonic functions (usually as determined by the circle of fifths) would probably result in more C Ionian music than C major music.


Ok, well that's interesting, but it does seem to be in direct conflict with a music theory course that I just took. This course is entitled "Understanding the Fundamentals of Music", by Professor Robert Greenberg of San Francisco Performances, created by "The Teachings Company". These courses are recognized by many universities and colleges to be very good courses.

In this course Professor Greenberg teaches that the Ionian mode is a "major mode" because of the major interval between the tonic and the third degree of the mode. He teaches that the Aeolian mode is a "minor mode" because of the minor interval between the tonic and the third degree of the mode.

So after having taken this video course, you're now telling me that this is "in error". If so, it's Dr. Greenberg's error, not mine. He taught this quite strongly in the video lecture (lecture #8), and I've also just now read it in the accompanying book that comes with the video course just to be sure that I hadn't misunderstood the lectures.

So now you're telling me that what I've just 'learned' from this course is in error.

Here's a link to the course I'm talking about:

Understanding the Fundamentals of Music

By the way, if you'd like to view that particular lecture you might check to see if you local library has this course, or if not, they can probably get it for you free via inter-library loan.

This Dr. Greenberg goes into extreme detail concerning the structure and evolution of all the modes. He actually starts with the Pythagorean overtone series and builds up from there giving in-depth lectures about how these things unfolded over history. He doesn't gloss over anything.

The problem is that his lectures, while heavily technical, don't really help much in terms of teaching practical "musicality" in terms of how to actually employ these scales musically.

But that's why I keep referring to Ionian as being a "major mode" and Aeolian as being a "minor mode". According to Dr. Greenberg this is technically correct for reasons associated with the major and minor intervals of the third degrees of these modes.

If Dr. Greenberg is wrong, then I should return this course and demand my money back.

But what he says is certainly true about the intervals of the third degrees of the Ionian and Aeolian modes. So it would be hard to argue with him I would think.



Romantic Geek said:


> But I think you're asking about several progressions that maybe suggest a mode. Here are a few that you usually see: Dorian, the bVII-i motion is pretty common as a dominant to tonic relationship. For example, in D Dorian, a progression from C major to D minor. In Lydian, II-I is used as a cadential gesture (a recent paper at Music Theory Midwest shows how this progression is common in Lydian rock music of the 70s). So in F Lydian, the progression from G major to F major. But as far as a syntax for modes versus major/minor keys, it is far looser and not really anything that could be easily described.


Ok, that makes sense. That's probably what people are referring to concerning progressions that they see as suggesting a particular mode.

Obviously I'm going to have to start listening to various forms of music that are associated with these modes.

I'm just beginning to study these pages:

The Dorian Mode Explored

These are guitarists playing Dorian mode leads over various styles of background accompaniments. This will give me a good idea of both Dorian melodies, and various style of background music and harmonies I can use. Some examples they give are Santana, Black Sabbath, etc.



> Now...all "rules" don't go out the windows. Remember, you may think you're composing something in Dorian when it actually is more Aeolian (etc.) so if you're going for a specific mode, you'll need to emphasize the characteristic notes/intervals of that mode to cease confusion.


Ok, it's not really my intent to necessarily work within the technical confines of any particular mode. I'm just looking for new melodic and harmonic techniques. 

The fact that they are called "modes" in music theory gives us a "term" to refer to them, and hopefully a better ability to communicate ideas concerning these melodic and harmonic structures and techniques.

My desire to "study" them is not to lock myself into any specific technical corner, but rather to just gain a better understanding of what melodic techniques are available.

When it's all said in done, if I create music that can't even be pinned down as being in any particular mode that will be fine with me, as long as it sounds good. 

I'm just looking for new ideas. "Food for musical thought"


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> Ok, well that's interesting, but it does seem to be in direct conflict with a music theory course that I just took. This course is entitled "Understanding the Fundamentals of Music", by Professor Robert Greenberg of San Francisco Performances, created by "The Teachings Company". These courses are recognized by many universities and colleges to be very good courses.
> 
> In this course Professor Greenberg teaches that the Ionian mode is a "major mode" because of the major interval between the tonic and the third degree of the mode. He teaches that the Aeolian mode is a "minor mode" because of the minor interval between the tonic and the third degree of the mode.
> 
> So after having taken this video course, you're now telling me that this is "in error". If so, it's Dr. Greenberg's error, not mine. He taught this quite strongly in the video lecture (lecture #8), and I've also just now read it in the accompanying book that comes with the video course just to be sure that I hadn't misunderstood the lectures.
> 
> So now you're telling me that what I've just 'learned' from this course is in error.
> 
> Here's a link to the course I'm talking about:
> 
> Understanding the Fundamentals of Music
> 
> By the way, if you'd like to view that particular lecture you might check to see if you local library has this course, or if not, they can probably get it for you free via inter-library loan.
> 
> This Dr. Greenberg goes into extreme detail concerning the structure and evolution of all the modes. He actually starts with the Pythagorean overtone series and builds up from there giving in-depth lectures about how these things unfolded over history. He doesn't gloss over anything.
> 
> The problem is that his lectures, while heavily technical, don't really help much in terms of teaching practical "musicality" in terms of how to actually employ these scales musically.


Ah, what Dr. Greenberg says is correct. But it's important to know that "major modes" and "major keys" are two different things. Same with minor. No refund needed. (Also, just so you know, I am a current PhD student in music theory at one of the top programs in the country, so I'm definitely not trying to misguide you.)

By major mode, he means that the opening three notes match that of a major scale. A minor mode does the same for a minor scale. Lastly, there is the "Phrygian modes" which has the opening three notes start with the Phrygian third (note, this is different than minor!)

But to make my point clear, something in a minor key is hardly ever in a minor mode. We very rarely see a work composed where only the notes of the Aeolian scale are used. Usually a minor key includes a raised 7th scale-degree in order to create a leading-tone to the tonic (at the very minimum!) While the line between Ionian and a major key is fuzzier than this, it still is there.

Second, you keep returning to this point of harmony. But as stated before, modes are more of a melodic thing. Truth is, most compositions are a melodic thing. While you may "hear" harmonies in Renaissance music, it's all derived from counterpoint. Counterpoint that is set in a certain mode. In fact, the Baroque is the same way. Much of the harmony is derived from counterpoint. If you truly want to write a modal piece, I suggest you work on the counterpoint aspect. The harmonies will simply be created by carefully woven counterpoint...rather than composing the harmonies and writing the melody above it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish or how or what you're planning to use this modes with/for...but I'd maybe focus on melody first and worry about harmony second.


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> But to make my point clear, something in a minor key is hardly ever in a minor mode. We very rarely see a work composed where only the notes of the Aeolian scale are used. Usually a minor key includes a raised 7th scale-degree in order to create a leading-tone to the tonic (at the very minimum!) While the line between Ionian and a major key is fuzzier than this, it still is there.


Ok, then I humbly plead ignorance in the sincerest sense of being uneducated in a formal sense, (at least in terms of music theory)

Which brings me back to the very subject of this thread *Modes versus Keys*. If a mode is not what makes a key major or minor, then what does?

*That is the question that seems to be eluding me. *

Dr. Greenberg's course is quite extensive, but he never made that particle concept clear. On the contrary, he introduces the modes first as "pitch collections". Introducing the Ionian mode as a major mode, and the Aeolian as the minor mode. He never truly addresses the concept of "major or minor" key directly in detail.

Now he does continue on to talk about tonality, key signatures, and the wheel of fifths. And, of course he refers to the major keys and their relative minor keys. But he doesn't introduce this as a "new" concept of major and minor. On the contrary the way he presents this material it appears that the concept of major and minor have already been address in terms of "modes".

In other words, the key of C Major is then made up of chords based on the Ionian step patterns (thus they are built from a collection of pitches that contain a major third as the third degree of the pitch collection). And A Minor is made from chords base on the Aeolian mode step patterns (thus those chords are built from a collection of pitches that contain a minor third as the third degree of the pitch collection).

In other words, the Major and Minor "keys" are what they are because they are build from the Major and Minor modes (or pitch collections).

*So it's my understanding from this that the major and minor "keys" arise directly from, and because of, the pitch step patterns of the melodic modes. *

This is my understanding from Dr. Greenberg's course. He doesn't offer any other description or explanation for "major and minor" keys beyond this. From his presentation it appears to me that the major and minor keys arise directly from, and due to, the step patterns of the pitch collections of the various modes.

This is why I'm thinking that the other modes must therefore produce harmonic tonalities in a similar fashion. Based on the step patterns of the pitch collections of those modes.

That's where I'm "coming from". :tiphat:

That's what's causing me to think the way I'm thinking.



Romantic Geek said:


> Second, you keep returning to this point of harmony. But as stated before, modes are more of a melodic thing.


Well, if the chords that make up the harmony are "built" from the step patterns of the pitches that make up the modes, then wouldn't the harmonies automatically be innately tied to the pitch collections they where constructed from?

Like I say, that's my current understanding at this time (be it right or wrong).



Romantic Geek said:


> Truth is, most compositions are a melodic thing. While you may "hear" harmonies in Renaissance music, it's all derived from counterpoint. Counterpoint that is set in a certain mode. In fact, the Baroque is the same way. Much of the harmony is derived from counterpoint. If you truly want to write a modal piece, I suggest you work on the counterpoint aspect. The harmonies will simply be created by carefully woven counterpoint...rather than composing the harmonies and writing the melody above it.


Ok, I can understand the concept of harmonies arising naturally from counterpoint.

But that's basically an entirely different topic from the question I posed in this thread.

My question is simply "Modes vs Keys?", how are they related and what is the difference between them?

I actually have Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint" book here, but I confess that I haven't actually studied it. :lol:

I would like to learn that technique of composition as well, but like I say, that's a whole different topic from what I was trying to address in this thread.

Perhaps by answering your next question this may help to clear things up.



Romantic Geek said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish or how or what you're planning to use this modes with/for...but I'd maybe focus on melody first and worry about harmony second.


Well, that's the whole point right there. My "method" of composition right now is entirely based upon improvising over a harmony and rhythmic percussion structure live, and then creating the 'composition' from that as it spontaneously develops.

It's basically "improvisation" being written down, only not quite because not all the improvisation gets written down. Only the good parts. 

And of course motifs arise from that which then become incorporated and expanded upon as well. So it's not just pure improvisation. It composition being inspired by improvisation. 

So this is why I'm looking for harmony ideas that go well with various melodic modes, etc.

~~~~

Not to belabor the point, but going back to my understanding of how the "Major and Minor Keys" appear to be a direct result of building harmonies form the "Major and Minor pitch collections (or melodic modes)" my thinking is that if I wanted to use a particular mode I should build a "harmony" that somehow contains some of the characteristic of that mode.

So that was my line of thinking.

This is why I was asking what the difference is between modes and keys.

Because if a minor mode is used to create a minor chord harmony and a major mode is used to build a major chord harmony, then it naturally makes sense to me that a Dorian mode should give rise to a "Dorian chord harmony" etc.

That was my thinking.

This is why I decided to ask what the difference is between a mode and a key?

That is where I was coming from with my question about modes versus keys.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> Ok, then I humbly plead ignorance in the sincerest sense of being uneducated in a formal sense, (at least in terms of music theory)
> 
> Which brings me back to the very subject of this thread *Modes versus Keys*. If a mode is not what makes a key major or minor, then what does?
> 
> *That is the question that seems to be eluding me. *
> 
> Dr. Greenberg's course is quite extensive, but he never made that particle concept clear. On the contrary, he introduces the modes first as "pitch collections". Introducing the Ionian mode as a major mode, and the Aeolian as the minor mode. He never truly addresses the concept of "major or minor" key directly in detail.
> 
> Now he does continue on to talk about tonality, key signatures, and the wheel of fifths. And, of course he refers to the major keys and their relative minor keys. But he doesn't introduce this as a "new" concept of major and minor. On the contrary the way he presents this material it appears that the concept of major and minor have already been address in terms of "modes".
> 
> In other words, the key of C Major is then made up of chords based on the Ionian step patterns (thus they are built from a collection of pitches that contain a major third as the third degree of the pitch collection). And A Minor is made from chords base on the Aeolian mode step patterns (thus those chords are built from a collection of pitches that contain a minor third as the third degree of the pitch collection).
> 
> In other words, the Major and Minor "keys" are what they are because they are build from the Major and Minor modes (or pitch collections).
> 
> *So it's my understanding from this that the major and minor "keys" arise directly from, and because of, the pitch step patterns of the melodic modes. *


Ah, no problem. Ok, so here's the difference. The difference is in context. In the Common Practice Period, which is where we see major and minor keys, we have harmonic context. We have the basic structure of Tonic-(Predominant)-Dominant-Tonic. This gives music it's own language, which we call "tonality." Without that, using that pitch collection, we only have "modality." This is why people get confused when they think there is only tonality and atonality. That's far from the truth. Some people use tonality very broadly, and maybe Dr. Greenberg did.

Although I mentioned possible "dominant" relationships in Dorian and Lydian, by all means, these do not relate to the V-I relationship in keys. Thus, I return again to the point that modality is more about the mode itself, the actual collection of pitches and steps, thus a melodic entity rather than harmonic. Tonality however, is more harmonic. There is counterpoint, but it definitely is obscured over the favored harmonic thinking of things.

This is my understanding from Dr. Greenberg's course. He doesn't offer any other description or explanation for "major and minor" keys beyond this. From his presentation it appears to me that the major and minor keys arise directly from, and due to, the step patterns of the pitch collections of the various modes.



> This is why I'm thinking that the other modes must therefore produce harmonic tonalities in a similar fashion. Based on the step patterns of the pitch collections of those modes.
> 
> That's where I'm "coming from". :tiphat:
> 
> That's what's causing me to think the way I'm thinking.


Thus, I think it will be hard for you to think this way...successfully. I suggest you immerse yourself in listening to the modes before you start composing if you're going to take a harmonic/improvised melody approach.



> Well, if the chords that make up the harmony are "built" from the step patterns of the pitches that make up the modes, then wouldn't the harmonies automatically be innately tied to the pitch collections they where constructed from?
> 
> Like I say, that's my current understanding at this time (be it right or wrong).


Yes, harmonies are built from the step patterns of pitches, but they also have context. That circle of fifths is one of the strongest indicators of tonality. Modality does not have that though it technically would have the same harmonies (except in minor, because of raised notes).



> Ok, I can understand the concept of harmonies arising naturally from counterpoint.
> 
> But that's basically an entirely different topic from the question I posed in this thread.
> 
> My question is simply "Modes vs Keys?", how are they related and what is the difference between them?
> 
> I actually have Fux's "The Study of Counterpoint" book here, but I confess that I haven't actually studied it. :lol:
> 
> I would like to learn that technique of composition as well, but like I say, that's a whole different topic from what I was trying to address in this thread.
> 
> Perhaps by answering your next question this may help to clear things up.
> 
> Well, that's the whole point right there. My "method" of composition right now is entirely based upon improvising over a harmony and rhythmic percussion structure live, and then creating the 'composition' from that as it spontaneously develops.
> 
> It's basically "improvisation" being written down, only not quite because not all the improvisation gets written down. Only the good parts.
> 
> And of course motifs arise from that which then become incorporated and expanded upon as well. So it's not just pure improvisation. It composition being inspired by improvisation.


I'd like to think all composition is inspired by improvisation  Even me the theory major composed stuff that was improvised. See my fugue in the Today's Composer thread. Though the fugue itself is thought out, the subject and answers are improvised!


----------



## Romantic Geek

> So this is why I'm looking for harmony ideas that go well with various melodic modes, etc.


Returning to your above point in the quote bubble above, you think they are different. Alas, they are not as different as you believe!  Even the most harmonic music has good counterpoint. The reason rock songs work so well in their modality is because they're usually more concerned about voice-leading than actual chord progressions. That way, it's easier for the guitarist/keyboardist to make the appropriate change when it needs to happen. Remember, most of these musicians are not technically trained and thus try to make it easier on themselves 



> Not to belabor the point, but going back to my understanding of how the "Major and Minor Keys" appear to be a direct result of building harmonies form the "Major and Minor pitch collections (or melodic modes)" my thinking is that if I wanted to use a particular mode I should build a "harmony" that somehow contains some of the characteristic of that mode.
> 
> So that was my line of thinking.
> 
> This is why I was asking what the difference is between modes and keys.
> 
> Because if a minor mode is used to create a minor chord harmony and a major mode is used to build a major chord harmony, then it naturally makes sense to me that a Dorian mode should give rise to a "Dorian chord harmony" etc.
> 
> That was my thinking.
> 
> This is why I decided to ask what the difference is between a mode and a key?
> 
> That is where I was coming from with my question about modes versus keys.


You'll be more convincing improvising the melody first on a certain mode and then finding harmonies to fit under the improvised melody. I think that is the best way going about this. I know it may seem really backwards for you, but I think you'll find "progressions" (though we really can't use it in the same sense as tonal progressions) that you are comfortable with.

Good luck!


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> Thus, I think it will be hard for you to think this way...successfully. I suggest you immerse yourself in listening to the modes before you start composing if you're going to take a harmonic/improvised melody approach.


Yes, that's where I'm headed. I'm going to see if I can find examples of the kinds of music that I'm interested in creating. That seems to be far more helpful than trying to get ideas from "music theory" anyway.



Romantic Geek said:


> I'd like to think all composition is inspired by improvisation  Even me the theory major composed stuff that was improvised. See my fugue in the Today's Composer thread. Though the fugue itself is thought out, the subject and answers are improvised!


I'll look that up. I'm on dial-up here, but maybe I'll take a ride over to the library. They're closed today, but I can still use their wi-fi from the parking lot. 

Like you, my overall compositions are thought out. I'm writing fantasy songs (they actually have lyrics). The songs are quite long, and they tell stories. So there's an overall structure to the composition in general.

Generally the way I compose these things is to get the story written in lyrical form first (I basically write a poem).

Then I consider the mood I'd like to create for each section of the story. That will inspire a rhythmic beat. So that becomes the pulse of that section of the song. From there I create a harmony backdrop, choosing a harmonic structure that "feels right" for the emotions of the story at that point. Once I get that up and running, I have "music" that I can then start to sing the lyrics over and add other melodic instruments.

From there, it becomes a little bit of story-telling, then an excursion into instrumental melody, then back to the story. As the story moves along the background rhythm and harmony may change dramatically, potentially changing keys (harmonic modulation) as well as changing rhythm and percussion beat/pulse/tempo.

The story then continues to unfold, etc.

So it's improvisation, along with quite a bit of intentional thought-out structure.

But I'm most comfortable starting with the rhythm and harmony backdrops first, and then improvising the story over that. Kind of like how a painter might paint a background landscape first, and then paint the subject over that. In fact, that's pretty much how I view the process. Like a "Musical Painting".

~~~

I started this thread just to see if I could get some sort of "technical music theory" ideas concerning the concept of "modal harmonies", but I guess there is no such thing.

The idea was that if I was armed with "Music theory tools" I might be better equipped to construct such harmonies intentionally. But evidently that doesn't seem to be the case.

To be perfectly honest about it, "Music Theory" in general has never truly been very helpful for me in terms of actually creating music. It seems that every time I turn to music theory for help with writing music, it usually ends up I just get told to go listen to musical examples of what I'm trying to create. :lol:

I mean, in spite of Dr. Greenberg's intensely technical course on modes, etc, I haven't really obtained any useful information that helps much in terms of actually creating or writing music. I already knew that the modes existed and you can find the "scales" to practice anywhere. Now I have a headache filled with technical information on interval step patterns and dissonant and consonant intervals etc. But when it comes down to actually writing music I don't think like that anyway. I just improvise and use what sounds good.

I can't even imagine sitting down and actually trying to write music "intellectually" based on whether or not the intervals between the notes I'm writing are consonant or dissonant. Doesn't anyone actually write music that way?

Every time I turn to "music theory" for help with writing music what I seem to always "learn" is that music theory can't help me much and that I'd be far better off to just go listen to musical examples of the kinds of music I'd like to create.

So, I'm off to do just that. :tiphat:


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> You'll be more convincing improvising the melody first on a certain mode and then finding harmonies to fit under the improvised melody. I think that is the best way going about this. I know it may seem really backwards for you, but I think you'll find "progressions" (though we really can't use it in the same sense as tonal progressions) that you are comfortable with.
> 
> Good luck!


I'll consider that approach as well.

In the meantime I'm going to just take a break and see if I can find musical examples that employ the types of ideas that I'm attempting to get at. I'm sure I'll find a lot of examples.

I probably should have just gone straight to that approach. I was thinking that "music theory" might have some useful tools to offer that could help. It was worth asking about anyway.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well, maybe it'll help explain that much of music theory is focused on tonality and serialism, two things that modality does not align with. Theory can be very helpful to compose in certain contexts, but alas, yours is probably less so. It doesn't mean that the theory isn't out there. It certainly is, but it's not very mainstream and usually quite complex, and in the end, you'll probably come to the same conclusions and better internalize them if you just listen to the music.

Remember, compositions came first...then the theory


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> Remember, compositions came first...then the theory


Exactly.

In fact, I'm really good at organizing things and making them into "a science". So as I proceed to develop my method of "musical paintings" (which is probably a fairly common method actually), I'll probably begin to create my own strategies and methods for doing this. So in that sense, I'll end up with my own "music theory tools" of sorts.

Thank you for your comments and patience with my questions.


----------



## Abracadabra

I found what I was looking for!

Dorian Mode: Harmony Analysis - Part 1

Dorian Mode Masterclass - Part 2

Dorian Mode Masterclass - Part 3

This guy is thinking precisely along the lines I had in mind.

He's constructing what he calls "Dorian Harmonies", and then constructing what he calls "Dorian Progressions" using those harmonies.

He's doing it precisely the way that I imagined it would be done based on my understanding of how modes should relate to harmonies.

When he's done he's basically defined the "Key of C Dorian" complete with it's own characteristic harmony chords and progressions constructed from those chords.

This is exactly what I was looking for and hoping to find. 

He also has similar courses for Lydian and Mixolydian modes and "harmonies".

I don't know how "technically correct" his methods are, but they look good to me. 

They also seem to be in line with Dr. Greenberg's explanations of modes and harmonies. The harmonies are built up from the modes. This makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> I found what I was looking for!
> 
> Dorian Mode: Harmony Analysis - Part 1
> 
> Dorian Mode Masterclass - Part 2
> 
> Dorian Mode Masterclass - Part 3
> 
> This guy is thinking precisely along the lines I had in mind.
> 
> He's constructing what he calls "Dorian Harmonies", and then constructing what he calls "Dorian Progressions" using those harmonies.
> 
> He's doing it precisely the way that I imagined it would be done based on my understanding of how modes should relate to harmonies.
> 
> When he's done he's basically defined the "Key of C Dorian" complete with it's own characteristic harmony chords and progressions constructed from those chords.
> 
> This is exactly what I was looking for and hoping to find.
> 
> He also has similar courses for Lydian and Mixolydian modes and "harmonies".
> 
> I don't know how "technically correct" his methods are, but they look good to me.
> 
> They also seem to be in line with Dr. Greenberg's explanations of modes and harmonies. The harmonies are built up from the modes. This makes perfect sense to me.


Lol, "contemporary Roman numeral analysis" with all capital RNs...that's actually the old way, not contemporary. (Silly guitarists  ) To be honest, I'm not very convinced by that first progression he has. It actually sounds a lot like Bb, especially the way he put the emphasis on A (the leading tone) and resolving it to Bb. By adding the A to the Cmi6, it's really just creating a leading-tone seventh chord to Bb. The F7 to Gmi is just a V-->vi deceptive progression. The Bb-->C is probably the only real Dorian sound in that particular progression. Otherwise, it's too functional in Bb major. (At least for me).


----------



## Romantic Geek

Granted, in the second video, how he voices it the second time is a lot less functional. Lol!


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> Lol, "contemporary Roman numeral analysis" with all capital RNs...that's actually the old way, not contemporary. (Silly guitarists  ) To be honest, I'm not very convinced by that first progression he has. It actually sounds a lot like Bb, especially the way he put the emphasis on A (the leading tone) and resolving it to Bb. By adding the A to the Cmi6, it's really just creating a leading-tone seventh chord to Bb. The F7 to Gmi is just a V-->vi deceptive progression. The Bb-->C is probably the only real Dorian sound in that particular progression. Otherwise, it's too functional in Bb major. (At least for me).


Well, I'm not about to argue over this deeply. However, I will point out that he's clearly not resolving harmonically to Bb major, he's resolving to Cm, so he's clearly in a harmonic key of C. He claims to be in the key of C Dorian and he has convinced me that this is precisely the harmonic world that he's in.

I'd just like to make following points:

1. His working examples appear to work. 

His method, (right or wrong) appears to be working in a practical manner to produce the type of results that hold interest for me. (i.e. this is what I was seeking be it right or wrong)

2. This is how I had 'expected' things should be based on Dr. Greenberg's music theory course.

What I believed to have learned from Dr. Greenberg's course, is indeed that the harmonic keys arise (and are constructed from) their underlying modes.

So this guitarist's approach, not only appears to me to be working, but it also appear to me to be in perfect harmony (if you'll excuse the pun) with music theory. (i.e. Modes give rise to harmonies)

3. As far as I can see he's clearly in a key of C, not the key of Bb major.

He's harmonically resolving to C minor not to Bb major. Therefore his harmonic tonal center is C not Bb. He's clearly not working in the key of Bb. Although as a technical matter he would necessarily be notating the music using the same key signature that is shared by Bb major (as well as G minor). But that's just a coincidence of notion. The key signature of C Dorian just happens to be the same key signature as Bb major and G minor because these are all relative keys (i.e. harmonies built from modes that all arise from the same relative pitch-step patterns.

The fact that he's using the Bb key signature does not mean that he's in Bb major. He's clearly in C Dorian because he resolves to a C minor Chord.

You say:



> It actually sounds a lot like Bb, especially the way he put the emphasis on A (the leading tone) and resolving it to Bb.


Well, perhaps that precisely the magic of the Dorian mode?

When playing in C Dorian you have two things going on simultaneously. You have the overall harmony wanting to resolve to the C minor chord. But simultaneously you have the melodic A note wanting to resolved to Bb.

This could indeed be the "secret magic of Dorian". You have two different things both wanting to resolve in different ways playing tag with each other. One is a harmonic resolution (the C Dorian Harmony wanting to resolve to a C minor chord) and the other is a melodic resolution from A to Bb.

That's how I see it.

In any case, like I say, I'm not interested in getting into technical discussion over this. The "Silly Guitarist" is doing precisely what I had imagined could be done. He's providing several working examples, and I understand the "theory" behind what he's doing and how he's using theory to construct them. This makes sense to me with respect to my understanding of music theory as explained by Dr. Greenberg.

So it works for me. 

If someone asks me if there's such a thing as a harmonic key of Dorian and I'm going to reply, "Yes, all the modes give rise to harmonic keys because that's how music theory works".

That's my current understanding. And I _understand it_ because it makes sense with respect to music theory.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> Well, I'm not about to argue over this deeply. However, I will point out that he's clearly not resolving harmonically to Bb major, he's resolving to Cm, so he's clearly in a harmonic key of C. He claims to be in the key of C Dorian and he has convinced me that this is precisely the harmonic world that he's in.
> 
> I'd just like to make following points:
> 
> 1. His working examples appear to work.
> 
> His method, (right or wrong) appears to be working in a practical manner to produce the type of results that hold interest for me. (i.e. this is what I was seeking be it right or wrong)
> 
> 2. This is how I had 'expected' things should be based on Dr. Greenberg's music theory course.
> 
> What I believed to have learned from Dr. Greenberg's course, is indeed that the harmonic keys arise (and are constructed from) their underlying modes.
> 
> So this guitarist's approach, not only appears to me to be working, but it also appear to me to be in perfect harmony (if you'll excuse the pun) with music theory. (i.e. Modes give rise to harmonies)
> 
> 3. As far as I can see he's clearly in a key of C, not the key of Bb major.
> 
> He's harmonically resolving to C minor not to Bb major. Therefore his harmonic tonal center is C not Bb. He's clearly not working in the key of Bb. Although as a technical matter he would necessarily be notating the music using the same key signature that is shared by Bb major (as well as G minor). But that's just a coincidence of notion. The key signature of C Dorian just happens to be the same key signature as Bb major and G minor because these are all relative keys (i.e. harmonies built from modes that all arise from the same relative pitch-step patterns.
> 
> The fact that he's using the Bb key signature does not mean that he's in Bb major. He's clearly in C Dorian because he resolves to a C minor Chord.
> 
> You say:
> 
> Well, perhaps that precisely the magic of the Dorian mode?
> 
> When playing in C Dorian you have two things going on simultaneously. You have the overall harmony wanting to resolve to the C minor chord. But simultaneously you have the melodic A note wanting to resolved to Bb.
> 
> This could indeed be the "secret magic of Dorian". You have two different things both wanting to resolve in different ways playing tag with each other. One is a harmonic resolution (the C Dorian Harmony wanting to resolve to a C minor chord) and the other is a melodic resolution from A to Bb.
> 
> That's how I see it.
> 
> In any case, like I say, I'm not interested in getting into technical discussion over this. The "Silly Guitarist" is doing precisely what I had imagined could be done. He's providing several working examples, and I understand the "theory" behind what he's doing and how he's using theory to construct them. This makes sense to me with respect to my understanding of music theory as explained by Dr. Greenberg.
> 
> So it works for me.
> 
> If someone asks me if there's such a thing as a harmonic key of Dorian and I'm going to reply, "Yes, all the modes give rise to harmonic keys because that's how music theory works".
> 
> That's my current understanding. And I _understand it_ because it makes sense with respect to music theory.


Fair enough. I just want you to realize that if that progression is displaced by a half note, it would be very much Bb. I could probably find some Schumann examples with similar chord progressions with this shift of meter.

I also think that too much stress on natural 6 would be unfortunate. Especially if it is used to resolve to Bb as it is in all of these examples. That half step creates too much pull to Bb. If you do like he did in the second example and frustrate its dominance in the passage, it would sound much more convincing.

Also, as a wise professor once told me, you do not need the tonic to establish a key. All you need is the tritone. In this case, the dominant seventh (F7) creates that tritone...thus, it creates that tendency to resolve in to a Bb/D third. My suggestion to you, get rid of the seventh in the F7 and just make it an F chord. That's yet another thing you can do to diminish the pull towards Bb rather than C.

I'm not trying to diminish anything that guitarist is doing, but I must admit that typically guitar "music theory" is technically weak and has plenty of flaws, some of which I just described above. If you think that example is convincingly Dorian, then go ahead and use it. But I wouldn't hang onto every word this guy says.

Like you said, yes, he's resolving to C minor, but just a little mixup with rhythmic stress and this whole passage is very very easily heard in Bb major.


----------



## Abracadabra

Well, I certainly have no desire to become involved in arguments over these kinds of technicalities. That's totally irrelevant to my purpose. My purpose was to find new ways to create and explore new and interesting harmonic progressions that I could improvise over using various modes. From a practical point of view this guitarist is providing me with a methodology for doing this.

I don't need to use his precise chord progressions now. I can create my own using a similar method of analysis.

You say,



Romantic Geek said:


> My suggestion to you, get rid of the seventh in the F7 and just make it an F chord.


I thank you for that suggestion. I don't think the dominant 7th naturally came from the Dorian mode, I got the impression that he added that as a matter of personal taste for what he was trying to create. He actually says that he'll be considering a dominant 7th harmony. That could be done in any key.

You might have been taking his approach a bit too pure. He wasn't proposing his particular choices and chord progressions as being the only way to work with C Dorian. On the contrary, the choice of using the C minor 6th, and F major 7th were choices he appears to be adding in there for his specific purposes. He probably has a specific "Dorian sound" that he's aiming for based on his experience with how Dorian is commonly used in genres he most frequently works with.

So I don't plan on taking everything he did in those videos as being carved in stone. I'm just interested in working from an approach of creating a harmony first that I can then improvise over. So I'm interested in his overall plan of attack.

I haven't yet watched his videos on creating harmonies for Lydian and Mixolydian but I'm looking forward to getting ideas from those as well. Again, not viewing them as being carved in stone, but rather just as food for thought of how to potentially work with creating harmonies first, and then improvising over those harmonies (because that's what works best for me personally).

I'm not concerned whether the final product is analyzed to be any particular mode or key when I'm done. All I'm concerned with is creating new music that has qualities and sounds that are quite a bit different from what I've been creating. And following this guitarist's examples seems to be making some sense to me in terms of methods that I can expand on and make my own.

And like you say, I don't need to stick with the dominant 7th harmony that he chose. There is flexibility there to move in other directions too which is nice. In fact, it wouldn't be useful at all if I had to only do precisely as he did. Then I would only have one or two examples to work with and that would be that. That wouldn't be any fun.

I'm looking at this as being the first steps in an otherwise endless journey. 

I'm going to take his "method" and run with it. Not necessarily his exact "examples".


----------



## kevintimba

I've always considered that what separates D Dorian from C Major is that in true D Dorian, D sounds like the note that everything resolves to - the tonic - the piece should feel like it wants to end on a D minor chord, but should have G major instead of G minor when it goes to the IV chord. Large amounts of rock and pop use this type of mode.

*But here's my question for the group: *What about the middle movement of Beethoven's string quartet Op. 132 - which he calls " A Convalescent's Holy Song of Thanksgiving to the Deity, in the Lydian Mode". I love the movement, but I have a really hard time hearing it in F Lydian. Some parts sound like they're in C, and when it starts sounding like it's in F, there are Bbs instead of B naturals. Any brilliant insights out there?


----------



## hreichgott

Well, I think that movement has key changes during it, but the opening section is definitely in F Lydian. The B naturals tend to appear near the cadences, so we have the feeling of a nice major-key hymn tune and then a moment of unsettledness before the cadence. (Assuming we're more accustomed to major key than to Lydian, that is.) The first "Lydian moment" with a B natural is in the crescendo right before the first big cadence, at 0:45 in the Guarneri Quartet recording.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

When I gave this in composition classes, it often meant this... there are 2 groups "Plagal and Authentic"... and inside these 2 groups there are 4 modal scales. Pretty much, for us, we had a simple way of solving this. You join the 2 groups "Plagal and Authentic". So it gives you 8 modal scales, we don't start from Ionian, we actually didn't give names to them. We start in Dorian and we called it 1, then E is the 2nd mode and so on, till the another D but how do you know which modal scale you are using if you have 1st and 8th scales the same? The answer is, look at the Dominant notes. It may not be the best or the worst, but this is an easier way of doing this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Abracadabra said:


> I mean, if a song is written in D Dorian it would have the same "key signature" as the key of C major (i.e. no sharps or flats), the only difference is that it would use the Dorian scale and chords built from the Dorian mode? Is that right?


Yes, that's correct. We wouldn't say its "in the key" of D Dorian, but the C maj key signature is used. You run into these things a lot if you practice your sight-singing from the _"Music for Sight-Singing" _workbook, which has lots of little modal folk-melodies for you to figure out what the "tonic" is.



Abracadabra said:


> How could you tell that this piece was "Dorian" rather than C major or A minor? Would the piece most likely resolve to a tonal center of D? In stead of C or A?


Yes. If you sight-sing it (which, BTW is very good for your sight-reading on piano as well), you can hear it. It probably ends on D as well.



Abracadabra said:


> And would it actually be said to be in the key of D Dorian?


No, don't say "key." Just say, it's in D Dorian.



Abracadabra said:


> Is there such a thing as the Key of D Dorian?


No. But it does center around "D" as its tonic. So, in a sense, it really is a "key area," but don't call it a "key."



Abracadabra said:


> Or would they just say that it's actually the Key of C major being played in "Dorian Mode"?


It uses the key signature of C major, but so does A minor. And G mixolydian, etc.



Abracadabra said:


> I'm trying to get a handle on understanding modes better. :tiphat:


My advice:
1. _*Adopt a flexible, broad definition of "tonality" which means "in relation to a tonic."*_ Avoid overly-academic hair-splitting definitions of "tonality" and "modality." _*Don't even say the word "mode;" just say D Dorian.

Another valuable idea about modes:

There's really no significance to 'minor' or 'dorian' differences (raised or flat 6...big deal) until you start constructing CHORDS from them. There, the harmonic differences are more apparent. For example, in aolean or 'natural minor,' the i chord is minor (ACE), the iv is minor (DFA) and v is minor (EGB).
In dorian, i is minor (DFA), iv is MAJOR (GBD), and v is minor (ACE). I learned this from Ted Greene.*_


----------



## millionrainbows

@Taggart: "Like?" You mean I actually have the holy father's _blessing?_ Thank you, thank you...


----------

