|
|
Post by jean on Oct 9, 2017 18:43:01 GMT 1
...could you please tell us who these 'few' composers were, and the timespan covered by the 'very short period' when they were active? Roughly, from about the turn of the millenium, when official church music began to be commissioned and performed... Let's get rid of the 'roughly', shall we, and fill in what was happening before 'the turn of the millenium'. And could we have the names of these 'few' composers? (Go on, google them!) Which places? Which occasions? 'It'? What do you mean by 'it'? By 'common practice' do you mean diatonic tonality? If you do, then there is something in what you write here. But the truth of it does rather depend on your recognising the continuance of a practice that went back further than 'the turn of the millenium'. However, you appear to be admitting, at last, that you were wrong to claim that nobody ever based any composition on the modes. And that's progress. Your music history isn't up to much, is it? The vast majority of surviving music from Western Europe for this period was written for the Church. It is not a highly-specialised tiny selection of compositions, it is European music, for centuries. Don't make the mistake of assuming the church was as marginal then as it is now! You may be interested in that, but you won't find an answer unless you can say what music is. And apart from some vague statements about the inevitable triumph of the diatonic scale, and a conviction that everyone is ignoring Helmholtz's discoveries, you don't appear to be able to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 9, 2017 18:58:45 GMT 1
The reason I gave this thread the title I did was that by chance, yesterday's Early Music Show on BBC Radio 3 had particular relevance to this issue of tonality. Here's a link, so you can listen to it in preparation for discussing the issues further: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0977ltg |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 10, 2017 16:19:07 GMT 1
Nothing much, if you're talking about modal compositions.
Nope - it's irrelevant; the whole issue is irrelevant.
What used to be called Christendom.
Some church services, in some churches.
Consciously composing according to the patterns set up by the modes.
Yes - chromatic tonality, in fact, amongst other generally adopted conventions. You're not aware of the term? Maybe you should broaden your reading a little, beyond the Middle Ages?
Allegedly, on extremely scant evidence. It's a hypothesis, lifted wholesale from a handful of Greek theorists, who themselves didn't understand the real basis of their scale, and had formulated an erroneous theory to explain it.
No, what I claimed was that they misunderstood what they were doing - as Helmhotz showed. What they were doing was projecting an erroneous theory on the scale, which existed long before the modes were ever formuated, and was used for a far far wider range of compositions - in Europe and the rest of the world, before and after ancient Greece - than the insignifant corpus of works written by those few composing by consciously following the patterns of the modes. It's not a difficult point, and it's an indisputable one.
From someone who doesn;t know what "common practice" means, I'll take that as a compliment. Are you able to present an argument of any sort at all?
Nonsense. The vast majority of music from Western Europe, surviving or not, was written and performed for dances and alehouses and festivals and get-togethers of all sorts and varieties, nearly all of which the Church had nothing to do with whatsoever.
No -it's just that tiny fragment of music that you're interested in.
In terms of music history, it was, always. You believe those composers who sold their works to the Church had never heard any folk music? The thesis is preposterous.
I have done - and you'll find the same answer in any music textbook you care to open. It's not a matter of contention.
Nothing vague about it. Totally rooted in history - including your "modes" - all over the world, and wholly explicable by simple Physics.
Not everyone - just conventional music teaching. There's no question about that. As I've said - open any music textbook.
Able to do what? Say what music is? I have done. Understand how music works? I believe I do, fundamentally, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2017 17:23:31 GMT 1
Well, I can understand that you don't want to answer my questions. I think you're beginning to realise (you've probably done some googling in the meantime) that you were quite wrong to say, as you did earlier in this discussion, thatNow that you know that's not true, you turn to claiming, instead, that there wasn't very much music composed modally, and it wasn't very important (neither of which is true, in fact).Patterns is rather an odd word to use - different tonalities are what the modes offer the composer. You may be still thinking of this rather wild statement you also made earlier:
But in any case, the settling into diatonic tonality has nothing whatever to do with the establishment of equal temperament - more than anything else, it happened as a result of the rise of polyphony. You know what musica ficta is, don't you?
Diatonic tonality is not the same as chromatic tonality! Go and find out the difference (you can google it) and come back when you're ready.
You see, you're confusing diatonic tonality with chromatic tonality, and both of them with something you vaguely call the scale. Helmholtz would be tearing his hair out if he knew.
But you'll find the programme I gave a link to especially interesting on these points. Have you listened to it yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 10, 2017 18:08:38 GMT 1
I answered all your questions.
I never said that. I said what I said I said.
As opposed to the scale, was the point, as you well know. There is nothing over and above that for the modes to use.
I said what I said. Respond to your own inventions all you like, it won't progress you a jot any further.
Yes, patterns. Exactly the same patterns as are offered by the scale, of course.
Yes, that's right, in any distinction to the harmonic relations already present in the scale.
I didn't say it did. If you paid attention, you wouldn't need to waste your time arguing with yourself like this.
And you come to that insane hypothesis on what evidence, pray tell? Seeing as diatonic tonality existed long before written language, how could you possibly know this? And if polyphony came first - what is it that the various parts are singing to make it polyphonic?!
Oh do stfu, you silly silly woman.
No - it is what common practice is about, however.
Insult away all you want. You can't build an argument to support your case, so that's all you have left.
Google "common practice" before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Asked and answered, several times.
Au contraire - Helmhotz's whole work in this sphere conclusively demonstrated that the chromatic scale was as objective and "natural" as the diatonic - the difference is merely one of precedence in historical discovery.
No - I've told you, I'm not interested in that question. You are, but it's of no relevance to this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2017 19:18:28 GMT 1
I answered all your questions. No you didn't. And the few answers you did give were vague and unspecific. There is no such thing as 'the scale', so it's nonsense to say that it offers 'patterns' of any kind. All types of scale offer somewhat different patterns (if you want to all them that), and some harmonise better than others. When you are composing in a particular key, whether that's a mode or the diatonic scale, you will use only those notes found in that particular scale - in the diatonic major, you will make use of semitone intervals only between the third & fourth and the seventh & eighth notes. The modes have semitone intervals in different places from the diatonic scale, and from each other. They work very well when there is a single melodic line, but once a second line and more are introduced, some modes don't work as well as others. That is to say, two notes from the modes less successful (in terms of polyphony) when sounded together are more likely to produce a dissonance. So the 'rules' of that particular mode have to be broken. Here is an explanation. It's not all that clear, but I hope it helps: In medieval and Renaissance music, eight church modes dictated the organization of musical harmony. Diatonic harmony arose gradually, in the form of numerous exceptions to the rules of the church modes.Do I take it that you don't know, then? Because it would explain a lot. So why write 'Yes - chromatic tonality'? You don't know if you haven't listened! |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2017 20:28:26 GMT 1
Here's another explanation for what I called above the settling into diatonic tonality that you may find easier to understand: Though responsive primarily to melodic rather than harmonic needs, modality, for reasons of an essentially philosophical nature (modality purity), retained its hold upon composers well beyond the era of monophonic chant proper. By the same token, Renaissance polyphony turned to various subterfuges in order to preserve the integrity of traditional modality, while acknowledging the harmonically generated mandate to provide for the necessary leading tones (cadential halftone steps). Musica falsa and musica ficta were contrived as means of circumventing the modal image offered by the musical text through the addition of accidentals, according to certain generally accepted rules. In the later 16th century the Swiss humanist Henricus Glareanus, yielding to the musical realities of his day, proposed two new pairs of modes, Aeolian (corresponding to natural minor) and Ionian (identical with the major scale), for a total of 12 modes (hence the title of his book, Dodecachordon).As for this, it's so far from anything Helmholtz ever wrote that it's hard to know where to start: Helmhotz's whole work in this sphere conclusively demonstrated that the chromatic scale was as objective and "natural" as the diatonic - the difference is merely one of precedence in historical discovery. But if you have a reference to where you think he said something like it, we may be able to unpick it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 10, 2017 22:01:30 GMT 1
Ffs! I went through them. line by line, as I always do. Alright - repeat the ones the answers to which you weren't satisfied with.
You don't recognise the diatonic scale, then? Or the Western chromatic? No such thing? What, then, are you referring to when you talk about "the modes" as being the basis to music - all of which depend on the existence of both?
What "types of scale" are you referring to? And what do you mean by "harmonise"??!
Firstly, talking about composing in "keys" and "modes" is a bit like talking about using Semaphore or the telephone. They can both communicate, but one existed before the other was invented.
You understand what "scale" means now, I see, when it suits you.
Everyone knows this, Jean. Anyone who's ever had a piano or recorder lesson when they were eight. Is this really the best you can do?
Np - they do not. Of course they do not. How could they? A couple of them alter their pitch from the scale of a standard C tonic, of course - just as the keys that replaced them do. Entirely predictable - determined in fact - by the fact that the whole structure is generated by the same harmonic relations, just as Helmholtz demonstrated.
Well tell us: why not? If harmonic relations have nothing to with it? What makes one "work" better or worse than any other?
So, you admit the basis is harmony, then. Thank goodness - some progress at last.
Standard music histiography. Obviously false. The diatonic scale existed before the church modes, by at least five thousand years, in written history. The modes had to adapt to that reality, because the theory that generated the modes was wrong.
Of course I know. Anyone who has read a music textbook knows. You learned it through your barmy group of Morris dancers, not because you've read anything, obviously!
I was correcting you. I wrote: chromatic tonality, in fact. You understand? "Common practice" was not about diatonic tonality. Understand?
I do know. Nothing on earth would persuade me that music was invented in the 12th or 13th Century, thanks to the RC Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 10, 2017 22:22:09 GMT 1
 Hmmm...yes, well. Is this serious? You're expecting me to respond to this seriously? Someone from the Fast Show? You've never read any Helmholtz, and please don't start pretending you have just because you managed to find a page of it on Google Books! You couldn't even spell his name until last week! What? Well, er, funnily enough - you quoted yourself, just the other day! Otherwise - open any music textbook. Please, do, read a little, please. What I'm saying is not at all contentious. Helmholtz's work has been absorbed to that extent - you won't find anyone who disagrees with it. It's Physics, ffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 11, 2017 0:01:54 GMT 1
I went through them. line by line, as I always do. Alright - repeat the ones the answers to which you weren't satisfied with. None of them were especially satisfactory, but I realise that was probably because you don't know the answers. But I'd especially like to know who these 'few' composers were. I'll settle for an answer to that one. These are all scales. Different scales. It is your ' the scale' that is wrong. And note that I've said the modes were the basis of Western music. I'm well aware there are other musics, other tonalities in other cultures. When you sound two or more notes together, and obtain a pleasant or less pleasant sound. What sounds pleasant is to some extent culturally determined - something else you've denied - so what we call 'music' isn't entirely down to the science. I've told you before, you tend to use the word 'harmony' and its derivations to mean rather different things, thereby confusing everyone, including yourself. An ingenious analogy, but it doesn't work because there's no comparison. I understand what a scale is. There is no the scale. Good! In that case, why do they find it so difficult to understand that Easily. Here's a diagram:  It's American, so while 's' stands for 'semitone', we get 'w' for 'wholetone' Nothing Helmholtz discovered negates this in any way.Your 'the scale of a standard C tonic' is nonsense, of course. I've never said harmonic relations have nothing to do with it - just that they aren't an alternative to what you call the 'gobbledegook of intervals'. See above; same root, rather different meanings. No. I'm afraid that's not correct. In any case, you'd better decide whether the theory generated the modes, or was wrongly overlaid onto them - they can't both be true. Which is not at all what the programme would demonstrate to you. But you never want to learn anything, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 7, 2018 19:10:21 GMT 1
Some of Tom Service's programmes on Radio 3 on Sunday afternoons are more interesting than others, but this one on the Semitone is especially good. His section on the Phrygian mode (see my post above) is very helpful for anyone who's still having difficulty with the idea of the modes as bases for composition. |
|
Hmmm...yes, well. Is this serious? You're expecting me to respond to this seriously? Someone from the Fast Show?