OK, I thought I would post this as a guide to help folks with figuring out how the modes and keys fit together. First moving from C clockwise on the circle of fifths until the key of E major (The farthest I've ever seen a traditional tune "interpreted" on paper, as the three enharmonic key signatures B/Cb, F#/Gb, and C#/Db are almost never used in traditional music to my knowledge, and very rarely in general), and then moving from C Major counterclockwise. Major and Mixolydian keys will be written with capitalized letters, while Aeolian and Dorian keys will start with lowercase letters (besides the Bb dorian mode, because of a lack of an actual symbol for flat besides lowercase b )
C Major / a Aeolian / d Dorian / G Mixolydian ( 0 sharp )
G Major / e Aeolian / a Dorian / D Mixolydian ( 1 sharp ) F
D Major / b Aeolian / e Dorian / A Mixolydian ( 2 sharp ) F C
A Major / f# Aeolian / b Dorian / E Mixolydian ( 3 sharp ) F C G
E Major /c# aeolian / f# dorian / B Mixolydian(4 sharp ) F C G D
There are many patterns present in this table which are useful when attempting to memorize the keys and modes for example with no sharps, the A mode could be said to be Aeolian form. Add one sharp, and the A mode is now in dorian form, Add one more sharp, and now the A mode is Mixolydian. You can see it stair stepping down and to the right as we rotate clockwise around the circle of fifths.
Now the same table will be drawn rotating counter clockwise from C, also notice how the letter names of the notes and the first letter of the mode names themselves match for A and D in the key of C, These modes take their names from the beginning notes they were first applied to.
C Major / a Aeolian / d Dorian / G Mixolydian ( 0 flat )
F Major / d Aeolian / g Dorian / C Mixolydian ( 1 flat ) B
Bb Major / g Aeolian / c Dorian / F Mixolydian ( 2 flat ) B E
Eb Major / c Aeolian / f Dorian / Bb Mixolydian ( 3 flat ) B E A
Ab Major / f Aeolian / Bb Dorian / Eb Mixolydian ( 4 flat ) B E A D
Note how when we "move" counterclockwise on the circle the same mode patterns "move" backwards. With 0 flats the G mode is in Mixolydian form, with 1 flat, in Dorian form, 2 flats, in Aeolian form.
Two other patterns are worth pointing out, or more accurately it is one pattern interpreted in two ways. If we were to follow the ascension of sharps all the way through the enharmonic keys those sharps would occur in the order F C G D E A B, and if we follow the ascension of flats in the same fashion
(counterclockwise, in the opposite direction from C of course)
they would occur in the order of B E A D G C F, which is the same but backwards. This is really how the circle of fifths work, and I hope this is helpful to those who are trying to have a clearer picture of how keys are organized together
When the guitar player says "Oh, yeah, Morrison's, that's in the key of E Minor" what he means is that it's in the key of D but the mode of e Dorian.
When the guitar player says "Oh yeah, that's Scotch Mary, that's in the key of A minor" what he means is that it's in the key of G but the mode of a Dorian.
When the guitar player says "Oh yeah, that's The Glass of Beer, that's in the key of B minor" what he means is that it's in the key of D but in the mode of b Aeolian.
Being a dummy myself, it helps me, because I used to also refer to the key signature of tunes by what chord was used the most in accompanying the tune, even though it’s wrong.
Earl, your tables would be even nicer if the columns went either:
Major/Mixolydian/Dorian/Aeolian or Aeolian/Dorian/Mixolydian/Major.
That way the diagonal pattern you describe wouldn't have to wrap around in the fourth step. It also illustrates more clearly the progression from Major to Minor or vice versa through the intermediate modes, Mixolydian being 1/3 and Dorian being 2/3 of the way from Major to Minor.
The only other thing I'd like to mention is that clockwise and counterclockwise have no intrinsic meaning here and are as likely to confuse as to illuminate. It would be clearer to say "in the direction of increasing sharps" instead of "clockwise". It's merely convention (and I don't even know how widespread) to equate them. The former is unambiguous; the latter requires the reader to know or guess the convention.
Nicely put Earl. I put a bit of effort into figuring modes out a couple of years ago, but find others not so interested - they would rather just know if it's major or minor, and beyond that they think its too hard.
SWFL Fiddler: you're misusing the term "key". The keys of the tunes you mentioned ARE E, A and B. What you mean is that the key SIGNATURE is the same as IF the tunes had been in D major, G major, and D major. The key signature is the collection of notes that are sharped or flatted. The key is the tonic, or home tone. The mode is the pattern of half and whole steps in the scale from tonic to tonic. Any two of those three pieces of information determines the third.
Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music of course, but it is handy to know if you want to be a competent backer. The only time the discussion has ever come up for me was usually in relation to finding the most supportive chord and understanding why backing a dorian tune is different than backing a minor tune, and how mixolydian is different than major.
You are certainly right Gary, and I must confess I think I chose the order based on which keys were most relavent to classical music first, because in classical music theory dorian and Mixolydian are both irrelevant (I studied classically but was frustrated at the way modes were put on the back burner and described rather archaically , . If you ask your theory teacher how to write the key signatures for modes they will tell you something which does not match the convention used by traditional musicians, and that I have mapped out above. I just want to use the tools of the classical scholars to describe traditional conventions, in the way it is usually done though not widely understood.
Regarding rotating the circle of fifths, I regret I don't have the ability to post a picture on the forum of the circle. I know the circle is scary to most people, but you could look at it as a map with the easiest key in the center, and the more difficult keys to right and left of it, but truly once you explore farther to the extremes of either end, C no longer is any simpler than f# dorian.
here is what I mean:
Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E
using this "row of 5ths" you could build this table
Major : Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E
Mixolydian : Eb Bb F C G D A E B
dorian : Bb F C G D A E B F#
aeolian : F C G D A E B F# C#
so there you go, feel free to post your own version in this thread, I think the more we break this stuff down, the less of a mystery it is to all of us.
ah I see the forum decided to ignore all the extra space I put between notes to make it look clear, but I will point out the keys are arranged so that the modes ascend in a perfect diagonal pattern as you suggested. before I was merely noticing what was accidental, but this new order also prioritizes keys closer to the order in which they are used in Traditional music
All grand but I have just been learning a version of Scotch Mary with the first part in D major and the second part in A dorian. Certainly none of it is in the key of G. Looking at the comments section for that tune there seem to be quite a variety of versions listed.
There are some pretty clear rules in the school of music theory, which can be applied to determining a mode or key when accidentals are present.
In melody analysis there are some very specific uses of accidentals that never affect the key signature, and can be overlooked in harmonic analysis. They are neighbor tones, passing tones, suspensions (which only apply when chord, or some sort of harmony is also present), escape tones, anticipation tones, appogiaturras, and the renegade "free tone,"
Before describing what these all mean I will point out, these were originally used to describe what was happening "expos facto" or after the music was already written. It was only later in music writing that these "rules" were applied as tools useful for the composer in melody writing. It is my opinion that this theory is not intended to limit the possibilities for melody writing or interpretation. certainly what is not explained in the context of these non harmonic tones can be explained by temporary key or meter change, which is always a possibility when analyzing or writing music. I would, however, always look for the simplest explanation for why the music is doing what it's doing as much as possible.
The neighbor tone is a tone which occurs on the division or subdivision of the beat which is one diatonic note above or below the preceding note and following note, which are the same, for example the second beat first measure of the B part of Morning dew is often played with this triplet...
X:1
M: 4/4
K: D
| eB (3BAB) eBfB|
this is relevant because a neighbor tone is "allowed" to be chromatically altered to be closer to the main pitch. This can and should be used when considering whether an accidental in a tune should affect the key. Is it a note that is in between two notes of the same pitch? Is it on a beat?
Passing tones are tones which are added to fill in places in a melody where the notes of said melody are ascending or descending by a third. so rather than a melody line Acde, a passing tone is added between A and C to create a more pleasing scale like movement. so you get (3ABc de. Like neighbor tones passing tones are often altered chromatically to bring them closer to the note they are moving to. this also occurs in traditional music very frequently, and can be used to be explained notes on the beat as well as middle notes of ascending or descending triplets
Before going into appogiaturras and escape tones, I want to explain something about the difference between minor keys and the aeolian mode that is often unnoticed by trad musicians.
In classical music a melody in the aeolian mode would be referred to as being in a natural minor scale. The natural minor scale is the form of the minor scale that is not altered, but often in music the minor scale is altered for various reasons which i may or may not get into. The convention for this alteration involves, in the context of the melody, raising the 6th scale degree and the 7th scale degree when the melody is moving higher, and naturalizing both notes when the melody is moving lower. Now determining which way a melody is moving at any point is not always clear cut, which is why despite all of this, music is still an art as much as a science. But if you were to look at some more modern tunes (and possibly some old ones) that are in the aeolian mode, or natural minor key, you can find many examples of these tones being altered in precisely this way. Coleraine Jig comes to mind...
A more general rule of thumb is that when a note is anticipating or moving towards another note in a stepwise fashion, it can often be chromatically altered to be closer to it, as you will see frequently in Paddy Fahey tunes, and other "composed" tunes.
Yeah, actually your thread had quite a bit to do with it. my brain got all cloudy and I had to do some mental organizing. I think my main train of thought here is that keys are what we use to know which notes are predominantly sharp or flat, and modes are tools for knowing what the "tonic" note is. In classical theory a tonic can only be Ionian or Aeolian, that is Major, or minor, and dominant VII chords are not used, only the Major dominant V chord is used in both Major and minor keys.
Oh, I realized you were talking about a previous comment anyway. I thought you were saying something to the effect of the system not being applicable to your example.
Not at all. There are loads of tunes that change key or shift mode. A common one would be from D major to E dorian eg The Antrim Rose or The Wise Maid (the Scottish tune I posted a while back).
Oh, all well and good, but completely irrelevant to Irish trad. For instance, why cite the 'circle of fifths'? Earl says it himself - "I just want to use the tools of the classical scholars to describe traditional conventions". Great. No point, but great.
The 'circle of fifths' has to do with intonation and temperament systems, going back to Pythagoras, and, according to some, before that also. It doesn't really have to do with keys, except that it has been used by philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists to help develop the various systems of temperament which have been used at different times in history.
But trad ain't organised that way, and trad musicians don't think like that. So, my strong advice to anyone who wants to understand trad would be to ignore any system such as Earl has made. It will lead you astray.
I like No Cause's "I have a version of Scotch Mary in D major. I quite like it". Now THAT's how trad musicians think. Much more useful.
I don't want to argue why its useful for understanding traditional music, just that classical music theory didn't disregard modes because it can't be used to understand them, it can, and it is not overly complicated. If you ever refer to a tune as being in Dorian or Mixolydian mode, you are using this theory, I was simply making a complete map, which I have never seen anywhere. The one I have seen that came close, left some modes such as f# dorian, in which key I happen to know one tune, the JB reel. I would have never been able to learn this tune without acknowledging that it was played in this key. It didn't intuitively fall under my fingers because it is the only tune I've ever learned in that mode. I have seen it transcribed in different keys, probably due to the fact that f# dorian is a far out key that most of us rarely if never touch.
Phantom Button, I think understanding the modes can be of great benefit to those who play melody, and not just those who accompany or harmonize. Understanding the keys and modes, and tonal centers of the tunes helps the melodist understand which notes are the most important to the melody, which can and should be accented, which are less important, and can even be modified. Of course, most who play this music learn to find those characteristics by instinct. But it still can be useful to understand why certain notes sound 'righter' than others, and what the different scales are that underly the music.
For a fiddler the JB reel would have a completely different feel to it when played in F#dor than it would in Gdor (in which key it is posted on this website). Playing in F#dor would give a different resonance to the instrument than would Gdor, and there would be other issues to do with fingering and use (or not) of open strings which would also affect the tone colour.
Again, not sure ho helpful that is. You've cited a modern, composed, Scottish tune.
And how did you learn it? (I see you've only just learnt it in the last month or so.) 'Cos if you'd learnt it properly, by getting the sound of the tune in your head, I can't see what difference it would make to know what key/mode it's in. You'd just know the tune.
I mean, it's interesting, if you understand it, which I don't think you can from the above table, but I reckon a decent trad musician would play the tune perfectly well without even thinking about what key/mode it was in.
And I don't agree about classical music theory either. It may be possible to "shoehorn" (Llig's word) trad modes into something that resembles classical music theory, but it's not a good place to start, if you actually want to understand trad, or even the modes on which it's based.
Earl, I found your 'melody analysis' post fascinating and relevant to the puzzled thoughts that come into my head regarding what melodies do. Such thoughts as "so what scale (or set of notes) is this bit of tune really working with ". Thanks for that, I don't think it has figured here very much. But it in no way relied on what was in your first post - unless one chooses to look at that way.
There are three main problems with going down this route of analysis.
Firstly, I dislike the term accidental. It's not just the word, it's the inference. It describes a particular note in a tune as being somehow additional, and not integral.
Secondly, it ignores the areas in between what are usually called "notes that are in tune". The space between Cnat and Csharp, for example is very important with this music. The mode system is a straight jacket against this. I can think of a few tunes that are described as having an accidental Fnat. But what really should be happening is that there is just a cheeky little bending up of the Enat to somewhere not quite the Fnat.
Thirdly, the whole system is built around the concept of the route. A lot of tunes simply don't have them. And a lot of tunes disguise them. And even with the tunes where the route is clear cut, part of the art of playing them can be to not make them so obvious.
With Western art music, there are distinct differences between modulation, key/mode change and accidental. Not so with this music, the lines between these three are blurred and should remain open.
Is llig's "Thirdly..." the reason for problems from unsympathetic (or maybe any) backing - it can 'give the game away' by filling in gaps that the melody has left empty or by implying a route ( ? same thing).
Yes david it is. It kind of gives the strummer the green light to fill in the gaps. There was a post further up about a tune that was apparently routed in Gmaj, but had no Cnats in it. So the modal theory gives the strummer the "permission" to put the C in the chords. Wrong in my opinion.
The gaps in the harmony are very important to tunes, to their openness, to their freedom, to their integrity. Strummers should always remember that the music is complete without them. That's not to say I don't enjoy good strumming, I do, but the best strummers appreciate that the art is not to "complete" the harmony. Go with what the tune has. Don't construct additions based on theory.
Ha, yeah. I'm glad you picked me up on that. Yes, I meant root. But I think I must have subconsciously meant route also. I like it.
Are tunes routes to roots? Some are, some aren't. And I like the idea that a tune can be routed in Gmag, in that everything about it points to the root of G, but without actually getting there.
The Virginia is a good example. I'd say it's routed in Gmaj, but it never resolves to its root. And the lack of a Cnat or a Csharp anywhere makes for futher ambiguity. The second part makes people think it's in Dmaj (it's written in this data base here as being in Dmaj) but I think this is a mistake.
So strummers who believe what they sead here think it's in Dmaj and, according to their charts, begin the tune with a Bmin chord and it totally ruins it
Hmmm, that's interesting. I think that it is, in fact, in D, (but never really resolves to its root) ... But ... I totally agree that the first chord is 'orrible if it's B min. It should be G, or something else that's ambiguous enough not to wreck it. Love that tune ...
There is a Dougie MacLean song that I learned years ago that doesn't even have the root chord in the song. Can't remember what one it is just now and given that this is a tunes website I will not dwell on it but I found it interesting that there would be a song that plays around a key without hitting the root (unless you were to resolve it at the end of the song).
Help me out here, please. I am a musician for years that has never really been a master of music theory, I've always played based more on feel, and if someone asks me detailed questions about theory I will generally either change the subject or fake my way through. As I'm learning tunes and some are sounding good to me and some are not, these little bits of mode explanation do help me understand somewhat, for whatever reason. The two of you seem to suggest that learning completely by ear is the only way, and that all trad players think the same (or roughly, anyway). I'm not working against you, really, but this strikes me as odd and unlikely. I have known some trad players who would seem to fall outside of your description who are splendid. I have learned a few tunes strictly by ear, and a few with the help of dots and modal knowledge, and honestly, a couple of the ones learned with the help of the dots are coming out quite good and others not so good. Overall I'm moving toward learning by ear more and I do see the benefits. I dont' know what the answer is, but I just find it hard to believe that all trad players learn strictly by ear and all think the same. It would seem to me that even the players who disregard the talk of modes know more about them than they let on, and even utilize this knowledge, even if they don't know the names of them.
Again, I'm learning here, so I welcome your input and indeed to point out where I may be mistaken or misguided. Thanks.
I keep going wrong with this site - I type things and they disappear ... must be doing something wrong, Daresay I'll get used to it ... anyway, here goes again:
I reckon a lot of trad musicians know all about the modes, know what mode a particular tune is in, etc etc. But that doesn't mean that trying to "shoehorn" (I like that analogy) trad tunes into classical music theory is any use at all. And thinking about it while trying to play a tune would be a no-no, I reckon. You play a tune because you have it running through you, as it were, like nursery rhymes. This can happen minutes after hearing the tune, mind you.
I very much doubt if all trad players think the same, but all the good ones play "from the heart", ie, just let the tune out of them because they can hear it. (This also means, not coincidentally, that they can play about with it at the same time.) I wasn't - here at any rate - saying anything about dots at all ...
Jimmy, a very very small percentage, lets say 5%, of what makes up the music is in the dots. So any half decent player who says they learn by reading sheet music is only telling you that they learn 5% by sheet music. The other 95% is learned by ear. There is no other way to learn that lion's share. A lot of that 95% can be difficult to fathom at times, especially if you are not familiar with the style. Harder in fact than the 5% of it you could learn off the paper. So if you are having trouble hearing the 5% you could get off the paper and feel you need to resort to it, how are you gonna be able to get the rest of it?
I think that we came up with a reasonable distilation of the music/ears argument after one of our long and sometimes bitter arguments, and that was: "It's OK to use sheet music, just so long as you don't need it".
Lovely, thanks. From the heart, that really says it all. It's no mystery that the tunes I love and are ingrained in my head are the ones I tend to play better.
I know you addressed it to Llig, David, but since I have an opinion ... I reckon it's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it.
But back to the Virginia. I guess it doesn't really matter whether one thinks the tune's root is D or G seeings as it never resolves to either. But it's route to not resolving is a different thing, and that's what can mislead the strummer into the Bmin at the start. Because there are no Cnats or Csharps, you make your choice between the tune beginning on the major third of the root, or the relative minor of the root. You could say the first part is in G and the second part is in D? But does it sound like it changes key half way through? Does it sound like a key change if you follow it with a tune in Dmaj? I'm not sure. And I like being not sure. It's a brilliant tune.
I think that what I'm trying to get at is that tunes such as this defy rigid structure. And the beauty of it is that that's one of the things that makes them so wonderful and alluring.
I agree, yes, it's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it. My dad does it, he understands the music very deeply and he's never played a note.
However, once you've got that 100% firmly in your noggin and then pic up the instrument, you can start down the road of 110%.
[got logged of pasting this and posting it anyway even though I have crossed]
Ethical, that's related to the 'conversation' about routes ( ) to learning tunes that jig interrupted a week or so back.
I do get some of the 95% (using llig' s figure) before I pick up the instrument. And I get a lot of the 5% quickly, but some only in a way that tells me if I am playing it wrong. There is a lot of the 100% I don't think I will ever get until I can play a 'lowest common denominator' version at tempo along with a recording ( I may cheat a bit on the tempo...). I don't recoginse some things for what they are until I hear them against myself playing at the right(ish) tempo, metre and rhythm. That, I think, is lack of experience.
So if I have to hunt and peck for some notes after dozens of hearing I may as well start doing that early on, 'tutorial style' with a recording and the pause button so as to get onto the fun bit all the sooner.
And some people may use dots.
But I was really after a yes or no from llig because I want to find a flaw in his logic over the 5%.
So if someone can get to 100% without ever having played a note can they just pick up an instrument and play the tune ? And if not then whilst 'hunt and peck' might be the best route would looking at the dots lose any of the 100%.
the 5% / 95% is only an illustration. You miss the point if you want to quibble with the figure.
"If I have to hunt and peck for some notes after dozens of hearing I may as well start doing that early on."
This attitude only perpetuates you not getting those elusive notes sooner.
I'm not quibbling the figure, I was using yours as an example because it doesn't matter.
"This attitude only perpetuates you not getting those elusive notes sooner."
No, quite the contrary, the sooner I try 'hear it then play it' the better I get at 'hear it then play it'. And the sooner I learn to hear differences between what I am doing and what someone else is doing the sooner I learn to fit in at a session.
Who was it who said something along the lines of "the way to get good at something is by practising it" ?
I think llig and ethical blend have the sense of it.
It's perhaps only a small point but I'm not persuaded that "a lot of trad musicians know all about the modes, know what mode a particular tune is in". Perhaps they do, but in all the years I've been playing and teaching I can only recall a few occasions when someone attempted to ascribe a mode to a tune and I can't think of anyone who uses it as an aid to teaching other than as a mention in passing. I'm not generalising from the particular and saying no-one does, but I don't believe it's common practice. Certainly I've never heard my parents or grandparents or anyone I play with regularly refer to the mode of tune (and my mother teaches classical piano and music theory to degree level). It's much more common to categorize tunes in terms of key and tune "family" i.e. the resemblances between phrases in seemingly different tunes e.g. "it's a Galway version of Lord Gordon only the turn goes . . . ".
Like the "are sessions performances?" and the "can you learn from dots?" discussions it seems to be a topic that exercises the virtual community much more than musicians sat around the table top.
Jimmy B, for what it's worth, I'm pretty certain that I've never met a trad musician who hasn't used notation to learn a tune from something like Ceol Rince or the Goodman collection, or as an aide-mémoire for their pupils; even Padraig O'Keefe had "The Code". But I'm equally certain that most trad musicians would agree that the best way to learn a tune is from someone sat in front of you, all the more so when you're just starting out as it "requires negotiation and imagination. It requires you to know that what is written is a mere mnemonic, not an actual performance (it is impossible to transcribe an actual performance), nor the dynamic pulse of what it can be when it's played and head and danced. You have to go by your experience of other tunes which seem to have the same shape, and to perceive when this particular tune is different, and the value of that difference. You also have to contemplate the possibility that a tune's notation my be written "wrongly" - "wrong", here, meaning out of character or sympathy with the genre. For while there is no ultimate correctness in traditional music, there is wrong: the attempts of such as Yehudi Menuhin or James Galway to play "simple" Irish hornpipes. for example. Such interpretations are simplistic and one-dimensional - they ignore the possibilities. They take the tune as read whilst a traditional musician plays the tune as heard.", Ciaran Carson, from the superb "Last Night's Fun".
PJD: “…exercises the virtual community much more than musicians sat around the table top.”
My experience, too. As I’ve said before, I find the mode terminology occasionally useful in discussion. I could just as well say “rarely useful,” since I encounter so few people in meatspace who know, or care about, the terminology. In my own head, my experience has been pretty much as the Rev described in the other modes topic – interesting, useful in organizing thoughts, etc. Useful, but not important.
The topic comes up here because here we discuss (and argue) instead of playing the music. If every session had a one-hour discussion period, it would come up there, too. But then hardly anybody would come back the next week.
To my mind in the best seisiúns one can easily spend a hour spread over three talking about music. After all, they're essentially occasions for socializing not music making. And modes still rarely if ever come up!
Well, if you’re not dedicating session time to discussing dots vs ears, the fine points of modal theory and whether what you’re doing is a performance, then all I can say is you’re wasting precious time!
My point is, that's not what trad musicians talk about. It's more like "Where'd you get that setting from?", "How does that variation go?". "Did you hear that young Italian lad at the All Ireland?", "Is that one of Johnny's?", "What did you think of Harry's new record?", "Are you going up for the Trad Fest?", "What did you do with the first part of the turn the second time round?", "I remember when I first heard Paddy Canny playing that. We were up in LIstowel . . .", "How's your daughter making out with that new flute?", "Do you have the fifth part for Cregg's?", "Did I hear you were planning at the wedding on Saturday?", "Doesn't Begley put that with Johnny An Gabha?". and so on, and so on. It's always been as much about the talk about the music as its been about playing the music. You're in a pub, a public space, there's drink, its a social occasion. If you really want to make good music then you take it back to your kitchen. That's the way it's been done for fifty years.
"Secondly, it ignores the areas in between what are usually called "notes that are in tune". The space between Cnat and Csharp, for example is very important with this music."
I disagree, understanding the modes doesn't ignore those notes but rather helps you understand them better by identifying where they are exactly and the fact that they are slightly off the scale. Understanding where "rules" are broken and why only adds to one's understanding.
I personally would never write a flat or sharp in a key signature, if it wasn't even in the tune, in that case. I would never play a Bb chord over a tune in d Dorian, especially if that tune contained no B notes
I don't think your point is a small point, PJ. I guess what I was saying is that people know about these things, but yes, I agree, they dont think about them much. As for talking about them? Well, that would be a bit dull compared with "Who did you get that from. I have that second part like this. Have you heard that old major setting of the Star of Munster? Gosh! Nobody seems to play that one these days - haven't heard it for years. Thanks."
Phantom Button, A rather late reply I know, but I addressed you directly, and you came back and clarified, and I just wanted to say that it looks like we are saying the same thing in different ways, so we are indeed in agreement.
Like llig and Phantom Button said above, sometimes the most fun is in the tunes that defy convention, that waver between one mode and the next, tunes like Blarney Pilgrim and Earl's Chair.
Music is subjective, so any attempt to illustrate it with ratios is probably misleading. Fair play Llig, regarding the illustration, but your math sucks.
Jimmy, play by ear. When I play by ear something happens & I just get to *know* the tune. Variations in articulation become easier than if I learned from a written version. My phrasing & the fluidity of the tune is more comfortable, without the visual reference. I could go on, simply trust your ears (even when you think you cannot) & you will find some good crack with that.
Llig's maths is a red herring. The daftness of referring to a proportion of a tune in one dimension from 0 to 100% is shown by him going on to 110%. If it wasn't off-topic I was going to try to get llig or ethical blend to explain what was in their 100 percents. E.G. all the variations in the source ? There will be another chance I'm sure.
Transcribing music is similar to mapping. You can jot down a few lines & circles to lead you. Though, once you hit the road you'll always discover more. Hence ~ 110%
I was trying to find Ed Harris' enthusiastic reply when he accepted his 1st space mission, as John Glenn in "The Right Stuff." He offered to give something like 110%, Sir!
110% is a figure of speach not maths. If you want some maths - and a mapping analogy - think fractals. How long is the coast of Ireland ?
I reckon knowing 100% of a tune is like saying you walked round [insert your favourite island] - you can always do it again and put in a few more twists and turns. And someone can always say you cut some corners.
Let's just say I enjoy the field work of geography more than the actual drafting. With Greenland & the Antarctic warming up the Irish coast will likely become shorter, unless there are even more twists & turns? Fractals,eh?
Yes, but it seems there are folks who won't let you step out of the door unless you already know what you will find round every corner, and where's the fun in that ?
Random, Of the last ten posts, seven are yours! You are starting to hold a conversation with yourself, here. Time to take a trip to the local and spend some time with real people instead of the internet!
On weekdays people are always escaping their work & talking up a storm on thesession. Weekends tend to be slow. Al, I was out twice already & I had an opportunity to talk to quite a few friends.
Cheers, though. Now, if I could just find someway to have Llig give me a straight answer we might have a good site yet. Not that I don't find him charming. ;)
I am in the pub right now waiting for a download of "The Right Stuff" The beer is cold & the company is good.
Aye, I try to spend weekends not hanging around the internet. During the week I have to be at the computer anyway pretending to do work so usually leave a window open to thesession.org and another on my email. How lame am I?
I am at work right now doing some overtime on one of my regular days off. Since it is slow and there is nothing for me to do (temporarily), I am reading some of the discussions.
Despite all of my music theory training and classes as well as the fact that I am a good sight reader, I still find that using my ear is more dependable and reliable than my training and sight reading skills.
"I also don't have an iPhone or any malarky that would allow me to be online while at the pub. Thank f*ck for that"
You're welcome Miss Emily.
I don't have a fancy iPhone either--just something which I can talk into if someone wants to have a conversation with me.
Silver Spear, no worries. I don't have an answering machine or television at home & no internet. I take a laptop & take it to the "Beach Hut" for a shark bite & celebration ale. This morning, I am outside at the coffee shop down the street. Seems weird to me too.
Earl, the symbols are from the Character Map.
On Windows;
Start Menu > Accessories > System Tools >
Character Map > Font: Arial Unicode MS
✓ Advanced View
Group by: Unicode Subrange > Symbols & Dingbats
or you can copy this > ♭♯♮ > & paste where needed.
I don't have TV, an answering machine, a landline, or Broadband of any sort (is it just me or is this beginning to sound like that Four Yorkshiremen sketch?). I use a dongle or the McDonald's across the street's wifi to faff online while at home.
But it looks like a PC has to have the appropriate font loaded. Just turning off the old laptop I have hooked up to the stereo for BBC iplayer etc and all I'm seeing is a pair of horizontal lines. Copy and past gives
♭♯♮
which show as squares
So then, what's the symbol for a note about 30% sharp of E♮ and 70% flat of F♮?
And what's the symbol for the note halfway between C♮ and C♯?
I particularly didn't like Phantom Button's remark on the other thread where he said that knowledge of the modes was useful when determining whether a note breaks the rules.
It's like someone who does that silly olympic walking thing, (you know the one, where you waggle you hips and generally mince about) telling someone who's running that they are breaking the rules.
I'm not convinced that cramming things into modes works particularly well with Trad music, especially the Dorian mode. If you look at tunes in E Minor (Dorian) the c# is used most of the time as a leading note into a D, rather than a strong note on it's own. It also usually falls on the "and" of beats 2 or 4.
If as a backer you start using chord substitution (and the type and frequency is a matter of personal taste), then the most common chord substitution used for the Em chord is Cmajor7. Yet E dorian has a C#. Try using a C#m7b5 (the chord built from the c# in E Dorian) and it sounds sh*te.
Having said that, the Cmajor7 has become so overused that it now drives me to distraction.
Michael, there is no symbol for a pitch that falls outside of the modes as they have been identified unless you endeavor to invent one. You can only understand where they are by knowing what the scale degrees are and why those notes fall outside of it, hence, where the rules are broken. I'm sorry if this spoils the fun for you and Random, but sometimes the facts aren't all fun and games perhaps. Besides that, the note you are attempting to identify is only an option to begin with and not necessary to play the tune.
No. If you use scale tone thirds from the C#, you get C#-E- G, which is a C# diminished triad. If you add another scale tone third (B) it becomes a C#m7b5.
The chords built from the E Dorian Mode are Em F#m G A Bm C#dim and D. If you add the seventh they become Em7 F#m7 Gmaj7 A7 Bm7 C#m7b5 and Dmaj7.
Me, I like simple chords that follow the tune. Actually, most of the time I prefer no chords at all.
woops, you're stretching musical theory as far as you can. Do you actually have an example of a tune (E Dorian) where a backer has played that chord? I know I shouldn't ask.
Why would you substitute for the tonic (main chord)? See theory has to do with context and taste too. Anyone who is substituting the tonic better have a very firm grip on the tune and the subtleties of it's unique harmonic rhythm before even bothering to try. The best way to be expressive as a backer is by following the tune so closely in rhythm with your chord changes (often on the offbeat, sometimes not on a beat at all, sometimes 4 or more changes crammed into the last measure of a phrase) and choices (simple in so allowing for freedom of movement from chord to chord and omitting the third for most chords, throwing it in for color especially if it's present or distinctive in the melody, and having your C major chord ready when playing in D mixolydian or piper tunes )
I think the problem you are speaking of, reminds me of new age folk/ celtic groups you seem to be trying to make Irish tunes something they are not. Folks who should really write their own songs or tunes to do what they want with. If you play guitar for a tune, you are playing a simplified version of the tune which accents the rhythm that is implied in it's natural harmonic movement. You should not turn it into a jazz standard with gypsy counterpoint unless it is for a really good reason and the people you are playing with are fine with it. The best guitarists backing Irish Traditional music that I have heard (Michael O'Domnhaille) play 1 chord for 90% of a tune and maybe 2 or 3 at the most for the other %10 of the time. Substitutions seem to follow simple patterns that include droning the tonic note (usually a D when a piper is doing the same) in the presence of some other chord which creates a 7th or 9th with the root of the chord.
Emily, I'd love a shot of Jameson's. When I was younger my parents wouldn't let me have all of Llig's in between notes. We had 1 note! Two, 3 at best, on holidays.
"Jack, musical theory is conceptual, not factual.
Playing music there are numerous options. It is fun, unless we missed another rule.
Cheers!"
So why bother to even attempt to understand the science of sound known as "music"? The concept of modes and scales is based on the science of sound, all is an attempt to understand and define the phenomenon. The "rules" are based on the science regarding sound waves and frequencies etc., and weren't invented. The rules of science regarding sound existed eons before man developed enough to fart or even hear it. Again, sorry to spoil your fun.
Jameson's? I'll take a good single malt any day. Obviously Llig's had a few too many as he's vomiting over people playing "Csharpmajorsevenwithaflattenedfifth."
Random_Notes. I think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say. I've obviously expressed myself badly. My point was that Irish music can be ambiguous in it's modes. While the notes for many of the tunes are from the dorian mode, the Harmony (chords) seems to imply more of an aeolian mode. I was trying to say that you DON"T use chords like C#7b5. But you DO substitute an Emin with a Cmaj7. And in E dorian, there is no C natural. So, is it E Dorian, or E Aeolian with Accidentals? (And yes Llig, I know you hate that term, but I can't think of another at the moment)
1) Sometimes the reason the modes don't fit (as many have implied) is that many ITM tunes (and other trad tunes) are based on so called gapped scales. I don't see any reason to belabor this, but only remark that 5 note 6 note and 7 note scales (made by leaving out some of the notes of the usual scale) are often the source scales for tunes. That is both why modes don't work and why using your ears is a better solution than theoretical abstraction.
2) Sorry Phantom, we've long since stopped using the physics rules to define scales and modes. Let's not go around again on tunings (mean, just, 1/4 comma, etc.) There are plenty of theoretical constructs that step all over what we conventionally do in trad music (consider Indian scales).
3) It seems to me that the Emin/Cmaj7 thing most often may have occurred (or perhaps it is better to say first developed) in sessions when two accompanists played Emin and Cmaj chords at the same time or when one chord was played and the fourth note happened to be in the melody being played (like a C over an Emin chord). Either kind of thing will help to "set" the sound of the Cmaj7 (or similar chords) in the ears of folks as acceptable. It "ain't" a rule that chord tones are in the scale. In jazz for example one hears a Bb all the time in Cmajor blues.
4) Another reason Cmaj7 can work in Emin Dorian because the "other chord" is often a Dmaj chord which can imply the Cnat or even add it as a D7 (though I certainly wouldn't do that).
There, that ought to muddy the waters. Time to play music a bit I think...
A couple of snippets from the other thread (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/23035)
"but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music." - ceolachan.
"P.S. ~ There are no modes without ears, no moods without senses..." - ceolachan.
Modes are not theory, they are labels for things, usages, that occur repeatedly. Real theory, from physics, physiology and psychology, help explain why those collections of notes work together the way they do. And some historical research explains why they came to be regarded as useful rules for use in some sorts of music. And, I suppose, the stuff in Earl Cameron's first post shows why treating them as rules helps create interest for some people a lot of the time and not annoy most people too much of the time.
Anyone know of any real theory, or analysis of usage, for the in between notes ?
Michael... sound is vibrations in the air and the way they interact with each other is what we perceive as music. The very fact that we play scales and use modes is directly related to physics. If you don't think so then maybe you should jump off a building and see if gravity isn't based on physics too.
You could say everything this physics when it comes down to it, how your brain works etc. but it doesn't help.
The important point about music though is that while it may well be merely vibrating air molecules, the human organisation of these vibrating molecules is based on convention, not physics.
Arabic music uses tones that fall between notes of western modes. I once heard an Arabic fiddler talking about his experience studying western music in a US university. His professor asked him to play a tune from his culture, and after he did the professor said, "That was lovely, but there were so many out-of-tune notes." Then he played the same tune he had played for the professor and it was gorgeous.
The scales and modes are based on a different set of overtones than what western ears are used to hearing. I tried playing arabic music a while back and became frustrated by my inability to land on the notes that are a quarter tone away from western modes. But the difference between the modes used in Irish music and Arabic music aren't based on altered notes; they are actual scale degrees in Arabic music. This does perhaps explain why the alternate quarter tones sometimes used in Irish music have a desirable effect.
Michael, the sound our brain is interpreting is based in physics. The scales and modes are based in overtone series. There are infinite variations on this, but Irish music is based on a particular set of overtones. If that isn't true then what would stop you from writing tunes based on whole tone scales? The reason there are none is because Irish music isn't based on whole tone scales; it's based in modes, the most common being Major, Mixolydian, and Dorian.
There are actually seven different modes.
The three modes mentioned by Earl are used a lot in ITM,
and all of the modes are used in jazz.world,pop.folk,country, etc.
Modes are like different flavours/colours that can enrich both the melody and chords and suddenly change the 'feel' of the tune.
To dismiss the knowledge of modes is quite ludicrous !
in old deys we play de musik we love, ve are no vometing on hit,i think dis llig is useing vibrator,for rong reason,vomit on brain is better think i, the devil a care, with love.
Well, there are a lot more modes than seven, including some that are used in ITM that haven't made the list, like gapped modes, including pentatonic and others.
But, have I missed something? Was someone in this thread "dismiss[ing] the knowledge of modes"?
deer earl, why yo blow such hot air,i also saw clockwork orange,i play irish reel, blow in dark, i know not key ,let a lone mode ,do you play the irish musik ,or maby the jazz .the devil a care.with love.
Exactly my point. Modal theory, for example, talks of major and minor thirds and how these are strict definitions, quantifiable, measurable, scientific. They are not. They are cultural
"Nineteenth-century editions of traditional music frequently "corrected" tunes by adding sharpened leading tones, changing Dorian mode to Aeolian mode, etc. Hence, such sources should be regarded as suspect. Eighteenth-century collections appear to be fairly reliable; if the tune has lasted into modern times, it usually is fairly close to the eighteenth-century setting. Otherwise, a setting collected in the twentieth century is preferable." http://www.standingstones.com/modeharm.html
I completely agree with cboody's comment that "using your ears is a better solution than theoretical abstraction".
"I'd substitute a tonic for a beer, myself." If I didn't like beer better than tonic, I would drink to this. Maybe you could try a dominant or a sub-dominant instead of the tonic.
"I'd love a shot of Jameson's" I would drink to being shot by a bottle of Jameson's but I am on duty right now at the hospital while I am typing this.
Since I grew up in a musically literate home, our parents let us have all of the notes we wanted whether or not it was a holiday.
"I'll take a good single malt anyday" Am I still allowed to drink single malts although I am married now and am no longer single?
I agree with Llig's objections to a "C sharp major seven with a flattened fifth" being used in this music. That is going too far. This chord would work in jazz or ragtime (said the man who has played both) but I wouldn't try to use it in this type of music.
Phantom Button is correct when he reminds cboody that you can't avoid the rules of physics unless you are God or something else such as Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise or a surgeon at this hospital.
No, music doesn't have to conquered but does that mean you are supposed to let the music conquer you?
"Jack, why is it so important to cast the facts in stone & remove every bit of subjectivity?"
Please show me where exactly you believe I did this. I have made no such effort or claim. You might want to review my comments and try leaving your bias behind this time. My comments are only acknowledging the facts regarding the physics of sound and how that's related to the modes used in Irish music. You and Michael seem to want to treat modes as something invented after the fact when the physics of sound have existed since the big bang or when God created everything depending on your perspective. Michael identified a quarter tone that is sometimes used in Irish music that occurs between scale tones of the mode, and I have no problem with that. But to throw the modes out simply because of an option makes no sense.
"Just as people with differently directed tastes can erect extremely different kinds of buildings with the same stones, so also the history of music shows us that the same properties of the human ear could serve as the foundation of very different musical systems. Consequently it seems to me that we cannot doubt, that not merely the composition of perfect musical works of art, but even the construction of our system of scales, keys, chords, in short of all that is usually comprehended in a treatise on Thorough Bass, is the work of artistic invention, and hence must be subject to the laws of artistic beauty."
Very concise and clear. I'm liking it. He goes on:
"In point of fact, mankind has been at work on the diatonic system for more that 2,500 years since the days of Terpander and Pythagorus, and in many cases we are still able to determine that the progressive changes made in the tonal system have been due to the most distinguished composers themselves, partly through their own independent inventions, and partly through the sanction they give to the inventions of others."
It's a shame that Mr Button lumps all the notes in the scales we play in with 5ths and 4ths. These intervals are of course mathematically pure in them selves and were for a while the only mainstay of church harmony. But the introduction of further subdivisions of the octave compromised the maths irrevocably.
Everything since then is either/and convention/invention.
If you still are having trouble with these facts, ask a piano tuner.
Are you still insisting on denying the existence of modes Mr. Gill? Please explain for us why most Irish tunes adhere to the modes mentioned and if not... why. I suppose you have your own system of scales and tones... please elucidate.
It was asked above, "what's the symbol for a note about 30% sharp of E♮ and 70% flat of F♮? ... what's the symbol for the note halfway between C♮ and C♯?"
In some printed Irish tune books (Pete Cooper's is a recent one) an upward pointing arrow is used to show that the note is played sharp, about halfway to the next half-tone up.
A modern "classical" microtonal music score I once looked at used for a quater-tone sharp a # sign modified by leaving out one of the down-strokes. There was also a special sign for a flattened quarter-tone, but I don't recall it. With even more esoteric microtonal music (1/6 tones, as used by Alois Haba for example) the composer would very likely devise his own notation.
So Phantom Button's first contribution to this discussion is, "Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music ..." and now he is accused of being too tied up in rules? No wonder he feels like people are twisting what he says!
All this quartertone stuff reminds me of the late jazz trumpeter Don Ellis, who had a special trumpet made with a quartertone valve. His chromatic runs had twice as many notes as other people's--pretty wild.
Exactly, Al, one of the things I least appreciate about the discussion forum here is the penchant of some of the contributers to do more posturing than discussing. They seem to need to be "right" rather than just discussing a topic. And even though their efforts to accomplish being "right" defies logic and reason, it matters not because the objective has more importance than the topic.
In re:" cboody, sorry, you can't avoid the rules of physics regarding sound... unless you're God or something. Try again lol" Phantom: This is not the place to get into discussions of 17 note scales, Indian Ragas, 21 note scales, tempered scales, and a whole bunch of other things. Suffice it to say that physics has LOTS of solutions other than the 12 chromatic notes divided into eight tone western scales. And, even thinking of 12 tones what about octatonic scales? Blues scales? "gypsy scales?" or a bunch of others. Truly to say the 8 church modes were determined by physics and are the only ways to go is much more god like than anything I suggested.
llig: Modal theory, for example, talks of major and minor thirds and how these are strict definitions, quantifiable, measurable, scientific. They are not. They are cultural
That's the point. Yeah Phantom, there are physics reasons that can be found for most of the solutions for dividing the octave (arguably the only interval agreed upon in almost all musics). But the solution is not to return to physics. It is, as you have noted yourself, to use your ears and become familiar with whatever tradition. One of the really sad things to read in ethnomusicological stuff is the lengths scholars stretch to in order to fit trad music into some pre-defined set of musical rules (usually based on physics).
Maybe though we are talking past each other. I read your earlier remarks about physics and modes as implying that physics had somehow defined the church modes (only). That's what I'm objecting to.
I rest my case, here's cboody is so bent on being "right" he hasn't even read my comments before drawing his baseless conclusions. I brought up Arabic music a while ago in this thread. I think if you have anything to be "sad" about it's your own lack of knowledge about what has been said in this thread before you opened your mouth and placed your foot squarely inside.
So cboody, is it your position then that sound and the phenomenon of overtones has nothing to do with physics? Is it also your position that the modes discussed in this tread are related neither to physics or Irish music?
From cboody's profile: "much more knowledgeable about the technical ins and outs of music than many traditional players"
Ok, cboody, I see where you're coming from now; out to prove something. I'm more interested in having a discussion, so when you're done pounding your chest let me know.
Mr button has a habit of getting a little paranoid on these long threads and it makes his tone acusationary. Stuff like accusing someone of being interested only in being right, but prefacing the very same sentence with, "I rest my case".
It's pointless. All this: "I'm right." "No I'm right." "You said this." "But you said this" "No I didn't." "Yes you did." "No I didn't." "Yes you did." etc.
Stuff like: "Are you still insisting on denying the existence of modes Mr. Gill?"
I never said that, yes you did, no I didn't. For christ sake, enough already (as the yanks like to say).
I like the modal theory. It's interesting and I understand it. What I also try to understand is where its relevance to this music ends. Or rather, where the music goes beyond it. (de ja vu anyone?)
I find modal theory an interesting read. The Standing Stone link is one I will likely post again in the future. I haven't thrown it away. They provide some basic guidelines. Some tunes follow a modal model very closely ~ others are not always so tame. Not to say that music theory is without an explanation (many in fact)
Cheers, Jack. Thanks for your contribution. ;)
You mates are grand.
Regarding the "rules": I majored in music and went through theory courses for years where I studied and played masterworks from various periods of western music. But all of that study in college didn't seem to matter when I began playing Irish music. I was studying piano and harpsichord in college, but my first instrument to attempt Irish music on was the concertina. I started out self-taught, but when I moved to San Francisco a few years later I had the opportunity to receive private lessons from Noel Hill in exchange for organizing some workshops. His first observation of my playing was that I made it sound like I was playing a piano keyboard... and he was right; I had basically transposed my understanding of music to the concertina and Irish music. I had realized before that experience that Irish music was using as primary modes ones that I had heard as alternates or unusual. But this is part of what attracted me to irish music in the fist place. What followed the experience with Noel was a matter of breaking rules I never thought possible. But here's my point: my understanding of the "rules" helped me to pinpoint where the rules of western music were being broken regarding irish music. As I said early on in this thread: a theoretical understanding of modes isn't necessary to play this music... but it helps.
No Mr. Button, I'm not interested in pounding my chest. If I had been I might have listed my credentials in my profile. I didn't because in many respects they are not important in ITM. I congratulate you that you majored in music. I spent a good number of years teaching college music majors.
There are lots of issues with regard to your mention of overtones, most important among them is the fact that conventional music theory has accepted equal temperament which is not really overtone based and traditional music, particularly from eastern Europe and further east, doesn't base upon the same overtones if it bases on them at all. ITM too is full of tunes that pull at the fabric of overtone theory. But I'm not interested in carrying out this discussion further, since it clearly isn't a discussion. Llig has already made the salient point:
I like the modal theory. It's interesting and I understand it. What I also try to understand is where its relevance to this music ends. Or rather, where the music goes beyond it.
And you think you're telling me something new? BTW, your last sentence was my point exactly--the same point you challenged. I guess you learned something here after all. Great!
A lot of people with a standard education in western music (be it formerly educated or merely informally educated through the ubiquitous culture of it) are drawn to these diddley tunes because they sound exotic,
This is fine to begin with, but it's not accurate to identify things in them that "break" the rules of standard western harmony. It's perfectly natural, for example, if you have developed western ears, to wince at notes that, to you, sound out of tune, but it's vital that you realise that these "discrepancies" were not invented as rule breakers to a previously established system. They developed as a separate system and if they sound exotic it's merely because your ears developed in a different system. They are not exotic, of course, to ears developed within the traditional Irish harmonic system. The so called "sweetened" minor third is a good example (though sadly unavailable on a concertina)
To understand this music better, you have to develop your ears to a level where the tunes do not sound exotic. Identifying rule breakers to a strict modal theory based on physics gives one the impression that these particular tunes or parts of tunes are somehow special. But they are not. They actually sit comfortably with the rest of the music and until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be a be to play them comfortably.
An emphatic "Yes!" to what Llig just said. And one more point. These tunes, even with all the "sweetened" notes, etc actually DON'T "break the rules" of modal theory. Not if you're using the right modal theory, as opposed to something akin to classical music theory. I believe there are places where you'd find writings on modal theory as applied to Irish music, if you really need it. Henebry is often cited, but I haven't read him. I'm happy with the tunes as they are.
The modal theory was not based on physics, it was based on maths before the physics (and a lot else) was understood. Physics did not make the rules, musicians did. Those quotes from Helmholtz made by llig above follow page after page after page in which he applies his physics and physiology to various types of music (including the arabic scales). He comes to this conclusions *after* he has done the physics. The whole section on esthetics (search for that spelling) is a good read.
Thanks for that, Michael. Again you've said exactly what I was thinking, and said it better than I would have.
"...until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be able to play them comfortably."
This applies to every aspect of the music, and it's wholly missing in people who learn this music from recordings and notation and theory, rather than immersion.
And it's rather pathetic for people to righteously thump their chests about their superior "understanding" of the music when their own experience of it is almost entirely based on recordings, notation, and theory.
The "rules" of modal theory provide a road map, but as I said in my first contributions here, it's not necessary to play the music. What it DOES provide are markers to assist in understanding where the discrepancies are.
For all of you experts out there: If sound vibrating air isn't physics, what is it then?
You miss the point. The "discrepancies" between the two systems are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance.
Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory. As for me, the study of those things has only helped me to understand why the discrepancies we are discussing in this thread exist.
That being said, I'm wondering if Michael feels that anyone who plays Irish music on a fixed pitch instrument, or plays in tune with those instruments, is considered to be playing it all wrong because they fail to realize and play the true scale he refers to that exists beyond the boundaries of a tempered scale and would otherwise sound out of tune in relation to a fixed pitch instrument.
Fixed pitch instruments don't have the inter-tonal range to play all the tones of this music, which simply means that such instruments are limited, not necessarily "all wrong." A concertina isn't expected to produce all the micro tones that are possible on a flute, eh? Yet the two can blend.
Jack, consider this: pitches can be defined in terms of their frequencies, but whether or not a form of music uses certain frequencies, and the musical significance and roles we assign to various frequencies, is wholly cultural. Musicians within different traditions use different frequencies, and the play different scales built on those choices.
Besides, as Oliver Sacks makes abundantly clear in Muscicophilia (echoed by Daniel Levitin in This is Your Brain on Music), neuroscience research consistently shows that our sense of pitch is highly subjective and subject to change, physics or no.
The Irish music we're playing was developed during periods where the tempered scale (based on physics) was accepted and employed in the instruments being produced and used. The music we enjoy that's known as Irish traditional music is using the modes discussed in these threads, again based in physics. The way sound is produced in the instruments we play it on, is yet again based in physics. The options that Michael pointed to are just that--options--and not requirements for playing this music. To claim that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish music is just plain silly.
Thanks to Llig (or do you prefer Michael??) and Lonelyhearts for saying better what I was trying to get across. All those nice mathematical models of scales just go out the window when you hear good trad players...in almost any tradition. How else can you explain the scale of the GHP??
BTW Button: if you must quote my profile I'd certainly appreciate that it not be taken out of context....
Will writes: "Jack, consider this: pitches can be defined in terms of their frequencies, but whether or not a form of music uses certain frequencies, and the musical significance and roles we assign to various frequencies, is wholly cultural. Musicians within different traditions use different frequencies, and the play different scales built on those choices."
This was my point if you review my comments regarding Arabic music in this thread. It still doesn't dismiss the existence of physics and theory, not as a requirement, but rather an explanation.
LOL Jack, if I recall correctly, I'm not the one who has difficulty recognizing an analogy (or have you forgotten the "akin" episode?).
Just that music/billiards is a particularly misleading, misguided analogy. Which is what I said above (note the word "Comparing").
So all this old stuff is based in physics, Jack? Would that be Copernican physics, or Newtonian physics, or quantum physics, or...?
Erm, and no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music. So please don't make it sound like anyone has.
What some of us here are saying is that strapping your understanding of this music solely to the tempered scale and classically adapted modes will lead you to view some tones and intervals as "discrepancies" rather than utterly bog standard tones and intervals. And if that's your sense of the music, then you're simply misunderstanding it. Which you're free to do, of course. But it doesn't justify calling the rest of us "silly."
Will if you review this thread and my comments, my point from the beginning, in regard to the notes Michael was referring to, have been that an understanding of the modes isn't necessary for playing the music, but can assist in pin pointing where these discrepancies occur thus aiding in understanding why they might be there to begin with. I have also referred to these notes Michael pointed to as "options" since many well established instruments in traditional irish music can't play them The response has been to dismiss physics and theory as irrelevant. Please read the entire thread before you misrepresent me or the discussion.
I have read the whole thread Jack, so please don't insinuate that I haven't.
You're consistently missing the point. Those notes aren't discrepancies or options. And physics and music theory aren't the only arbiters of what makes a music. Our physiology and psychology (and hence culture) play a major, perhaps, predominant, role.
It's not as though disagreeing with you is disagreeing with Science with a capital S. Just your (rather narrow) view of it.
Besides, you completely bypassed an important point in my post above: "Erm, and no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music. So please don't make it sound like anyone has." Yet you then claim *I'm* the one not reading. Wake up.
From Dr. Brian Blood:
The standardization of pitch occupied much attention in the 19th century. The first suggestion for a standard had been made about 1700 by the French physicist Joseph Sauveur, who proposed C equals 256Hz, where Hz is one cycle per second, a convenient standard for mathematical purposes. The German physicist Johann Heinrich Scheibler made the first accurate determination of pitch corresponding to frequency and proposed the standard A equals 440Hz in 1834. In 1859 the French government decreed that the standard should be A equals 435Hz, based on the research of the French physicist Jules Antoine Lissajous. This standard was accepted in many parts of the world, including the United States, until well into the 20th century.
The association of the physical analysis of sound with the psychological aspects began as a serious study in the hands of Helmholtz. The human dimension affects our appreciation of tone, pitch and timbre and is something we need to appreciate to distinguish between mechanical data from physical instruments and what we actually hear or believe we hear. For example, Karl Ernst von Baer (1860), introduced a characteristic time constant, about 55 msecs, which he argued represented the time it took a human being to become conscious of a particular sensory impression. A good summary of this work and more besides is to be found in Music, Sound and Sensation by Fritz Winckel published by Dover, 1967, from which we have taken the following extract.
"These remarks should prove sufficient to show how in the human world principles of music aesthetics are determined by a physiological constant; the boundaries of the tone spectrum, the speed with which tones follow each other, the evaluation of the tone colour, the 'space' perception of sounds and the ability to determine the direction of the sound source."
"no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music"
If you review the thread the discussion modulated to a few people dismissing modes as being relevant to traditional music, and there was also discussion about whether or not it relates to physics.
For example:
"The modal theory was not base on physics" - david_h
"They break the modal theory based on maths" - Michael Gill
"But just in case - No llig it is *not based on physics*" - david_h
But I haven't dismissed the variety of cultural interpretations of the phenomenon of sound waves exciting air molecules, and in fact I embrace them, but I'm not going to pretend that Irish music doesn't fall within the framework of modes. Sure there are options within that framework, but most of the tunes are following the "rules" of the theory basically. If you or anyone else thinks they aren't, then maybe you guys should avoid using terms like Major, Dorian, Mixolydian, etc., when referring to them.
I usually don't use key and mode labels. They're only necessary when entering abc into a conversion site. I see the modes as optional, and the tunes themselves as essential.
Mr Button, at the time of Terpander, Pythagorus, St Ambrose and Pope Gregory modal theory was couched in terms of mathematics because they were quite good at that and there was a direct relationship to the lengths of strings and such. But it was only when Helmholtz and his mates starting making resonating chambers and apparatus out of gutta percha, sealing wax and threads from the cocoon of the silk moth etc, and cutting up human ears and looking at them through microscopes, that they began to understand the physics and how it related to our perception of sound.
Physics is just out there
Music is just out there
No one is saying they are not related and it is a failure of logic to suggest those quotes to are saying that they are not related
To claim that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish music is just plain silly. Maybe so. However, it's certain that they have no relation to the art of playing it.
If a pool player gets out his protractor and measures the angles, calculates all the forces required (with all the measurements of the mass of the balls, the friction of the air and cloth etc. - and just imagine the complexities of side and back spin) is he going to make a better shot? Of course not. The game of pool may well follow the laws of physics, and those laws may well be interesting. But a pool player learns by practice and plays by intuition. To him, the laws of physics are irrelevant. He knows only too well that to study them would, at best, be a distraction to his game.
Michael, the comparison of the physics off pool balls colliding and sound waves exciting air molecules has nothing to do with the methodology of playing pool or music--you missed the point.
Sorry, it's your analogy. I'm not comparing the physics of music with the physics of pool. I'm comparing the relevance of physics in pool to the relevance of physics in traditional Irish music:
"Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory. As for me, the study of those things has only helped me to understand why the discrepancies we are discussing in this thread exist."
And I said earlier, the "discrepancies" between the two systems of standard western harmonic structure and tradition Irish harmonic structure are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance. And as to why they exist? That was answered earlier also. It's through cultural isolation and nothing to do with either physics or mathematics.
"If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance"
That may work the other way when something exotic comes in from outside. Since I got the Eb key on the flute I have learned a few of those baroque influenced minor tunes with a leading note (Carolan & Scottish). On some recordings that note goes by without it being remarkable (presumably to my not completely trad ear), whilst on other it is emphasised in a "hey we have something cool and different here" sort of way. The latter is fun when playing with the Eb key.
Michael, you're getting lost in your own rhetoric. My comparison was between the physics of sound hitting air molecules and pool balls hitting each other--not playing pool with playing Irish music. The phenomenon of the physics of sound is what leads to music, and in the pool ball's case--knocking pool balls about on a table, but that's where the comparison ends... comprende?
There's a note on the Irish pipes (they'll have a name for it) that is slightly sharp of Eb. Kind of like a sweet Eb. You get it by covering only the higher of the two holes at the bottom of the chanter that are used to get your D. Pipers use it a lot to slide up to the E in either octave. So in Irish music it's not like really playing an Eb, more of a way of sliding the pitch of the E down a bit, or getting to the E from just below it. Fiddle players do the same thing all the time. Difficult on a flute where the key is either up or down, easier to half hole the bottom hole instead. Can't be done on a concertina of course.
Also, if you don't think learning the modes assists you in understanding the way Irish music works--fine--but some of us might. I realize that in Michael's world being right means agreeing with whatever Michael says and being wrong is whatever Michael says is wrong... but that's your world and not mine. For me the understanding of modal theory is helpful; this doesn't mean I'm wrong or can't hear, play, or understand the music--it just means we have different perspectives.
Jack wrote: "For me the understanding of modal theory is helpful; this doesn't mean I'm wrong or can't hear, play, or understand the music--it just means we have different perspectives."
Agreed. But this music cannot be fully understood based ***only*** on standard western scale/modal theory.
For generations, the gestalt of this music developed with little to no formal understanding or regard for standard western modal theory. It developed instead according to the ears of the folks who played it--not students of Greek (or any other) modes.
If Greek modes lead you to think of some notes as "discrepancies," then you're giving too much weight to the Greek modes. Irish music developed under a different set of musical premises.
The simplest way I can think of saying this is:
The sweetened minor third and other tones common to this music may sound (at worst) "off" or (at best) "beguilingly discordant" within the standard western system of scales and modes. But these same tones are neither "off" nor "beguiling" within the scales and modes of Irish music. They just are.
It's not easy to discuss the tones and intervals of Irish traditional music because we don't have handy labels for them. As yet, Irish music has lacked its Pythagorus (Tomas O'Cainnan comes close). But simply applying labels and frameworks (e.g., "dorian") from another culture may lead us to misunderstand the musical sensibilities that make this music unique and significantly different from other genres.
There's some cultural hubris at work when Western European modes are assumed to be the best tool for understanding Irish traditional music. A bit like presuming that French grammar would be the best lens for deciphering the Cree language.
Going back a bit (up the thread) ... what have the ancient Greeks got to do with anything? Totally different thing. Some of the same words (Lydian, Phrygian etc) - octaves and fiths considered similarly to later theorists - but completely different solution and completely different modes.
But who cares, anyway? It's still interesting, but not all that relevant when you're playing tunes. "Ooh, must remember that the next tune is in D mix." Don't think *that's* what happens - more like "bugger me, I/we seem to have gone into Tatter Jack Walsh again".
Well, the Pythagoreans were among the first to document an understanding of dividing tones into intervals, and their sense of what sounded "good" was based on the ratios for certain intervals.
My point is exactly that the Pythagorean system and subsequent systems of intervals adopted by Europeans and refined into Baroque and Classical music doesn't necessarily match--and so may be only somewhat relevant to the tones and intervals of Irish traditional music.
And it has nothing to do with playing the tunes well.
Hmm. I think that what goes in my head when learning to play by ear has more to do with scales, or sets of notes, and the way tunes work with them than with building up a repertoire of familiar patterns as suggested, for example, as part of the 'anti scales and arpeggios' debate. Somehow the model of the jazz musician running over the scale he is going to improvise over seems more relavant than what sounds very close to the idea of building up a set of familiar 'riffs' that raised hackles here recently.
the thread is 1 week old today. I have read [thanks google] more theory , in the past week, than I have in the past several years. if it helps my playing I'll let you know. I agree with Will, about hearing discrepancies, "Irish music developed under a different set of musical premises."
I was getting at a similar point with the Standing Stones link. Transcribers, upon not hearing the relative minor they expected, altered the melody. That's one way theory can be used. Or misused.
Question: if the modes are used for a genre why only 3? Ionian, Dorian, & Mixolydian. Would Aeolian be accepted? Are the additional modes anomalies ~ according to the theoretical premise?
Will writes: "Agreed. But this music cannot be fully understood based ***only*** on standard western scale/modal theory."
Where did I say or imply this? Maybe you guys should get away from your computers for a while and take a break. I don't get how I can make a simple observation and you guys can come in and obsess over it until you've invented something to criticize me for or challenge me on. For example, when I say "helpful" it doesn't mean "only."
My answer: the modes weren't "used" for this music, they were applied to it after the fact. There are a few tunes that would be classified as Aeolian for the purposes of entering them into the tune database here. But the folk process that tumbled these tunes around for generations didn't likely start out with a mode in mind when stringing the first notes together.
Also, there are many tunes in this tradition with too few notes to determine what mode they fit best under. Play Castle Kelly without any Fnats or Fsharps. The tune works fine without either. It also works well with both (commonly played with a low Fsharp in the A part and a high Fnat in the B part). That "ambiguity," while part of the music's charm when compared to other genres, isn't ambiguous at all within the music itself. Ultimately, with such tunes, which mode you call it is arbitrary.
Never mind all the tones common in this music that don't correlate to the diatonic scale....
Michael writes: "Since when has questioning something's relevance been a denial of it?"
Go back and review your comments, Michael; you were rejecting it outright saying it has nothing to do with it. However you want to interpret the physics of sound waves vibrating air molecules depends on your interpretation, but it's still sound waves vibrating air molecules. It just so happens that the most relevant theory related to Irish music happens to be what this thread started out being about. You would have to invent your own system if you want it to match your particular take on it, but you'd have to start ruling out more instruments than bodhrans, and you might end up in a very lonely session after you exclude what instruments are capable of playing the intervals you're insisting on from the ones that can't.
Apologies for any inference of what may or may not have been implied. Jack, you did post this bit "Michael, there is no symbol for a pitch that falls outside of the modes as they have been identified unless you endeavor to invent one. You can only understand where they are by knowing what the scale degrees are and why those notes fall outside of it, hence, where the rules are broken."
I don't see where anyone suggested that Modal theory was "used" or practiced in the development of Irish music, I don't think they sat down and said, "Ok, lads, now remember, we must compose this music based on modal theory," but it IS the best explanation for the basic structure. It is precisely that fact that underlines the point that "rules" of modal theory were "broken" and understanding where and why those rules were broken is helpful in gaining a better understanding of what makes Irish music unique.
Good heavens, yes random, its the same discussion that has llig's "routes and roots". I'm still happy with the comment by ceolachan that I lifted from the other thread "they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music".
I wonder if those Greek names indicate geographical patterns.
What do you call a D major tune that has you reaching for a low C# ? - English
What do you call a D major tune that has you reaching for a low Cnat ? - Scottish
Why don't the irish just play them in G major then ? - why stop at F if you can go all the way down to D.
Jack, your constant habit of ascribing ulterior motives to me and others is really petty and tiresome.
I'm trying to raise the possibility that hanging on modes may actually hinder someone's understanding of this music. If you don't want to consider that possibility, by all means cling to your opinions. But your doing so doesn't make me "silly" or "in denial" or "obsessed" or even critical of you. Just because I think you miss the point doesn't mean I'm challenging *you* on it. I'm assuming other people read these threads. Random here has suggested he might have even learned something from the back and forth.
So:
Are modes helpful in this music? Perhaps. But if anyone thinks that common tones in this music are "discrepancies," then they're putting too much weight on the modes in place of the conventions of *this* music.
Flip it. A player completely immersed in Irish traditional music in the early 1800s might think it odd that the formal Western music of his day lacked so many notes that were familiar to him. To him, the Western system would be full of "discrepancies."
I was responding to a different comment than yours, Random, but I think that should explain that the rules that were "broken" weren't broken intentionally because they weren't intentionally composing the music to conform with the theory. The theory just explains what basically makes Irish music tick, and understanding where the theory is left behind, or the "rules" are "broken" lends a hand in understanding... for me anyway.
"Jack, your constant habit of ascribing ulterior motives to me and others is really petty and tiresome."
And likewise your assigning to me points I never made and then criticizing me is equally tiresome. I have an idea, from now on why not express your opinions without inferring it has anything to do with what I said. You can start by eliminating my name from your posts and or misquoting me and misrepresenting any points I did or didn't make.
How can a person break "rules" that aren't part of his approach to making music? Sorry that just doesn't make sense to me.
Applying the diatonic scale and standard modes after the fact to music that evolved with no consideration of them can be seriously misleading. All I'm saying is that there are better frames of reference for understanding this music. Like the tunes themselves and the early instruments they were created on.
FWIW, how we interpret sound has *much* more to do with our brains and neural pathways than air molecules bouncing around. Research continues to reveal how subjective and relative our aural senses are.
And as I indicated from the beginning, understanding where and why Irish music strays from it's nearest explanation is helpful in understanding the subtleties of Irish music... to...
wait for it...
me... it's helpful to me
(The next post will no doubt say: "Anyone who uses modal theory to understand the subtleties of Irish music is getting it all wrong and depending on recordings and sheet music instead of sitting at the feet of the masters in Irish music holy places like Ireland or Montana.")
"if you don't begin with the theory why would you have to leave it behind?"
Random, I find it interesting that the notion of studying the closest related theory and locating the places where it's different would be a process you think would be useless in the pursuit of understanding something. Please elucidate.
The early consonant intervals were considered consonant
(as we now know) because the sound waves played together produce the fewest number of beats per second. The 5th, 4th, 6th, and 3rd. By this definition, within an octave, the farther two notes are apart, the more consonant they are. so from the first note the 5th is the farthest away (without getting closer to the first pitch repeated in the octave) and the most consonant, the original consonant tone. The 4th can be considered an inversion of the 5th, as it is an equal distance away from the first tone repeated in the octave.
The most dissonant interval is a semitone, or arguably the flattened 5th. I'm sure the sound waves could be analyzed to calculate the beats per second.
The discrepancy here is that notes sound different in context. There are always issues of tone and acoustics that influence the musician to play certain intervals flat or sharp. Fiddle players play more perfect 5ths than say harp players or dulcimer players, because we habitually tune until our 5th intervals produce the fewest beats per second ( or you could say until they sound good, you say tomato I say tomato).
I would definitely say there is latitude of how flat or sharp a note might be played based on how those notes are "moving" in the context of music (but does this really apply to anyone outside of fiddle players) ? That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be considered to be a different note. Surely Miss Lonely Hearts must be talking primarily about Pipe and Fiddle players. But do you suggest the harp too was not tuned to some evenly tempered scale, or if it was, it had more than 12 tones per octave? How was the ancient harp different from the modern harp tuned with the 7 diatonic tones which can be tuned flat or sharp a semitone to play all possible key signatures.
beg pardon, it's my poor grammar. I wrote *you* which implies *not me*. When *I* listen to a tune my rational brain shifts to the back burner. Some refer to this as a left brain/ right brain shift. If I begin learning a tune by trying to understand the best fit (in a theoretical model) the tune gets subdivided into those elements which work vs the discrepancies. Later on, my rational brain might want to form a theory which explains those discrepancies (nuances? nyah?) Rather than that, I do this ~
My brain *begins* empty of rational thought (your point about leaving something behind?) . . . my brain is empty except for the tune coming through my ears. This is where I begin, or at least try to begin. I consider this the primary place for learning any tune. Works for me with Irish tunes & my guess is it may help if I wanted to learn tunes from a different genre.
The trouble I have is that I can only listen to a tune I am learning so many times, say when driving so I can't pick up a whistle, before I start doing things like trying work out what the notes are. I am not very good at it. How do people with well trained ears mange not to do that ? And is it so wrong ?
"I find it interesting that the notion of studying the closest related theory and locating the places where it's different would be a process you think would be useless in the pursuit of understanding something. Please elucidate."
I find it interesting that you ask the question of Random ... after I've already succinctly elucidated further up ... twice at least:
"And I said earlier, the "discrepancies" between the two systems of standard western harmonic structure and tradition Irish harmonic structure are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance. And as to why they exist? That was answered earlier also. It's through cultural isolation and nothing to do with either physics or mathematics."
I'm sure it's possible now for me to continue this "discussion" and answer questions perfectly adequately by only quoting from the above. There being nothing else to add.
So Random, when you play the tunes are you intentionally or consciously playing notes that fall between the scale notes of the modes discussed in this thread?
As for my process, I usually am aware when a tune is sticking to a pentatonic scale and when other notes in a diatonic scale come into play. I also know when notes are altered. This helps me remember tunes as well. I'm rarely playing notes that fall between the scale notes and most of the excellent players I've had the privilege to be around and play with are basically doing the same thing. It's a rare thing when I see a musician actually employ the notes Michael refers to in this thread, usually they are masters if they can actually reproduce these notes accurately and intentionally, so it would be of great interest to meet him and hear him employee these precise subtleties to the music and see what it all sounds like according to his expertise.
"How do people with well trained ears manage not to do that?"
"It's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it. My dad does it, he understands the music very deeply and he's never played a note.
However, once you've got that 100% firmly in your noggin and then pic up the instrument, you can start down the road of 110%."
I make no claim to be a player at your level, Phantom nor Llig's nor Miss LonelyHearts. Your question seems to be directed at a particular *discrepancy* mentioned above. There are additional nuances, which my ears pick up (though I may lack the skill to play as well), that I do not 1st turn to models (perhaps later to rationalize). I trust my ears, shouldn't we learn this as the starting point?
"There's a note on the Irish pipes (they'll have a name for it) that is slightly sharp of Eb. Kind of like a sweet Eb. You get it by covering only the higher of the two holes at the bottom of the chanter that are used to get your D. Pipers use it a lot to slide up to the E in either octave. So in Irish music it's not like really playing an Eb, more of a way of sliding the pitch of the E down a bit, or getting to the E from just below it. Fiddle players do the same thing all the time. Difficult on a flute where the key is either up or down, easier to half hole the bottom hole instead. Can't be done on a concertina of course."
Because I looked in the recent comments tab and saw:
Show of hands
who has read every word above?
I am interested in modal theory. I do think it is valid using modal theory to describe this music. Just because many or most of the composers do/did not consciously understand the modal theory it does not mean that those modes are not relevant. Likewise however there is probably no real need for most folk to worry about modal theory. It can just sit in the background.
Having said that I am just guessing at how this thread has developed and what the arguments have been. I repeat that I have not read anything on this thread since my previous posts towards the top and given the length of the thread I am not about to start now.
Then you shall remain in a state of ignorant bliss. Hmmm ~ that could be a new screen name.
I particularly liked the last comment in the thread linked above. It is part of what has me keeping an ear out for the likes of Liam O'Flynn.
My starting point is at the same place my current understanding is; I'm not about to disregard it when considering Irish music or anything else. I don't buy the notion that you have to disregard it in order to understand this music. I have yet to see any peers attain a profound understanding and ability by disregarding what they already know. I do hear people playing out of tune sometimes, and perhaps advocates of the approach Michael subscribes to might argue it sounds out of tune to me on account of my incorrect methodology in learning it, but I would rather rely on my inherent sense of music to determine that for myself. Perhaps I'll go through this journey hearing the people who are playing it right sounding out of tune, but I guess that's my fate if I don't listen to the ITM gurus in this forum.
Liam O'Flynn is one of my faves, and he would be the sort of master I heard employ the subtleties referred to in this thread, so maybe I'm hearing it correctly despite my methodological shortcomings.
"I would rather rely on my inherent sense of music"
"The important point about music though is that while it may well be merely vibrating air molecules, the human organisation of these vibrating molecules is based on convention. The precision of intonation is cultural."
"To understand this music better, you have to develop your ears to a level where the tunes do not sound exotic. Until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be a be able to play them comfortably."
There is no such thing as an inherent sense of music. It is all learned. It is all cultural. All of it.
No physics, no theory, no inherent sense of music... mmmhmmm Michael... everything you mentioned contributes to one's inherent sense of music. Still can't wait to hear you play all the subtleties you illuminate on... should be amazing... or will it sound out of tune to me ya think?
I think the use of the word 'rules' in this context, and of 'discrepancies,' is unfortunate, as it implies that something that doesn't fit the 'rules' is 'wrong.' But there are so many tunes that flirt with one mode or another, or have unique structures, and there is nothing 'wrong' with these tunes. They hew to different 'framework' that is not right or wrong. In fact, if we didn't think they were more right than wrong, I doubt this music in particular would have appealed to us.
I doubt anyone composing a tune thinks about the mode in advance, it is more something that helps us examine the tunes after the fact, than build them in the first place.
I think that Miss Lonelyheart's analogy about Cree and French languages to be a bit too much--Irish music is distinctive, but it is still very much part of the Western European musical tradition. Perhaps not the classical musical tradition of the academic community, but certainly part of the folk tradition, and despite its differences, with much in common with the musics of surrounding countries. So instead of as different as Cree and French, perhaps as different as Spanish and French.
Earl, listen to various uilleann pipers playing variations of the tunes. There is something I can only refer to as modulation. Maybe it conforms to 1 (or more) keys (modes) (?) in the merry go round of 5ths. Good thread mate!
"With Western art music, there are distinct differences between modulation, key/mode change and accidental. Not so with this music, the lines between these three are blurred and should remain open."
Llig. Ta for the post up there related to my question. Setting aside the analysis bit I think there is an off-topic "top down" versus "bottom up" issue.
"There is no such thing as an inherent sense of music. It is all learned. It is all cultural. All of it." - Llig
We could equally say "... no such thing as an inherent sense of visual art ...". In that case it is easier to explain that there is an inherent sense of light and colour resulting from physics and physiology. The art is what we do with it. Chemists do fancy stuff making up new pigments and surface textures but no-one says art is about chemistry.
Same with sound. The physics belongs with the sounds (and so also the instruments) and not with the music that is made with them.
That's interesting David, I've not thought of it in that way. Though I think there is a slight difference in representative art (as opposed to conceptual art) and the way music is essentially abstract. Though the similarities of the conventions of the way we learn to draw and the conventions of the way we learn intonation are pertinent.
Kids don't draw what they see, they draw outlines. It's a very rare child indeed that can realise early on that objects they actually see do not have black lines around them. The black line thing is mere convention, and the desire to conform to convention is strong.
Intonation has a complex cultural history, but "correctness" is basically down to our immediate environment. My six year old's intonation is getting better, but it would get better a whole lot quicker if her mum would stop singing to her.
Interesting analogy with art, that occurred to me while I was writing this:
I remember an epiphany when I was learning to draw, when I first realised that objects didn't have black lines around them - it wasn't "early on". I realised that to represent the world in distinctive shapes that butted against each other, the boundaries being made by changes in light and/or colour, was much more satisfying. And that the study of the shape and contents of these shapes and their relation to each other made for not only a much better drawing, but also a much better understanding of what I was looking at.
So the analogy with music is to hear the shape and colour of notes and how they relate to each other. Listen for the change of note not as merely a black line (or dot of course) but as a subtle changing of tone and/or colour and/or pitch. With attack being the level of contrast between tone and/or colour and/or pitch.
Actually, that's not quite right Attack could be analogous to a black line between the notes.
So a piece of banjo playing would more or less be a straight forward line drawing (the lines should be different thickness of course) where the shapes are coloured in in flat colour.
A concertina piece would be a line drawing where all the lines are the same thickness and the shapes are all flat colour. If volume is analogous to shade, then the shading of the colour in each shape should be changing, but if colour is pitch, then the colour can't change.
The picture for pipes would be great, but a little flat, there being little dynamics. But being able to change the colour within the shapes is crucial.
Flute and fiddle music can give you the most varied pictures of course. But, I hasten to add before you bloody lot accuse me of being elitist, not necessarily the best.
"That's interesting David, I've not thought of it in that way." Neither had I - its Helmholtz again (I think , been reading some later stuff as well).
If I remember correctly he uses something that can be translated as 'tone colour' for the characteristics of musical tones that are inherent, from the physics, physiology and some psychology. Drawing the analogy from colour in vision. But I may not have that quite right, it may just be how it has left me thinking of it.
He has a comment about a particular style of percussion that you will like, but I can't remember the adjective to search on. I though it was "detestable" but that just pulls up a comment related to vibrato.
I wonder about the black line and boundaries thing. Images are 'encoded' in our heads (and part processed in our retinas) in odd ways but its some time since I was into writings for the layman on that. Someone (Levetine I think) says something about how music may be 'encoded'.
Crossed with llig. Attack on some instruments, especially plucked strings, is enharmonic, not a musical tone with its normal harmonics. As is percussion. (Helmholtz again). And a banjo pluck is particulary percussive because the head has vibrational properties similar to a drum.
But the little twists and turns put in by articulation techniques are mainly proper little musical notes, with their harmonics, not, apart from plucked strings maybe, really percussive.That, by the way, is why I think your description of the music as 'percussive' without need for percussion instruments is not right - its the wrong word.
I don't think all the analogies are needed, many of those characteristics are there in the waveform, in the physics. Playing a tune along with a recording while watching some of the graphic representations provided by Audacity (pitch, spectrum) is a curious experience. Ultimately unhelpful I suspect, but closer to the sound than the dots.
So why is it that Irish music is based on modes? Sure they didn't sit down with the idea of doing so... but it is. It's closer to modal theory than anything else. There is no other system that comes close. If you disagree than please point to a theory that better explains it.
So why is that? I would say it must have to do with the cultural environment. But even with that being established... what is it that makes sound harmonious and pleasant sounding? It's the physics of sound; the way vibrating air molecules interact. Regardless of what genre of music you're playing the thing they all have in common is the sonority that provides a pleasant sensation... or that inherent musical sense that hearing humans have that allows us to enjoy pleasant harmonies and tones--that's where the different interpretations overlap. Even though there are different interpretations of the phenonemon... they are still subject to the basic physical realities of sound, and that part remains consistent through all the variations.
... but I think I see what you mean. Attack is 'unpitched', maybe? Mind you, i haven;t thought of this. I'd be interested to know if it in fact is unpitched ...?
Irish music is, "closer to modal theory than anything else. There is no other system that comes close. If you disagree than please point to a theory that better explains it."
I've never disagreed that any other system/theory comes closer to describing the music than the modal system/theory. All I've ever said is that it's not sufficient. And that the act of comparing and describing the music in modal terms, even including caveats where it diverges, is at best, distracting.
You can just take it for what it is. I think that there is no need for any theory. However, if you feel you must have one, how about this:
The music is chaotic. Not in the usual sense of the word that implies a degree of randomness, but in the strict scientific sense of the theory where a system is deemed chaotic if any attempt to model it successfully results in a model as complex as the system itself.
And the music, of course, shares a characteristic common to most chaotic systems in that just one small change to any of the input data can have a dramatic effect on the outcome.
The upper partials, or whatever you want to call them, the higher frequencies that are not the fundamental, don't have a harmonic relationship with the fundamental that a 'proper' muscial note has. They are not drawn from frequencies at some or all of 2 times, 3 times, 4 times etc. the fundamental.
They need not be unpitched because the fundamental may have a definite pitch. But the normal musical relationships that rely on the harmonics (i.e. almost all of them) don't work.
Bodhrans, clinky bones, clunky bones, tinkly spoons, cloppy spoons. Plunky banjos - to an extent. Strummed strings with a lot of plectrum noise maybe.
Years ago now, I was interested in synthesisers and things. And I remember creating a sound with a lovely old analogue synth. A sound that had no real correlation to any real acoustic musical instrument. A warm sound, but none the less very unreal. But I did this thing with it that suddenly made it sound like something real, it was an extraordinary sensation. I sampled a simple knock on a table with my knuckles and attached that sound to the front end of my analogue sound. And suddenly the whole sound became real just because of that small and unpitched attack to each note.
A lot of cuts, taps and other articulations in Irish fiddle music are unpitched. You can do a thing where you just flick the string momentarily without making contact with the fingerboard. You just interrupt the vibration for a small amount of time. It's an unpitched percussive thing. Crunchy triplet things are the same. And one of the things that classical players find difficult to do because they have spent so long learning how to change direction smoothly is to put a bit of unpitched crunch in your change of bow direction.
despite your best efforts each of these analogies indicate you are leaning toward developing a theory. I understand this is a process from the left side of the brain.
Thanks for the attempt, Michael, but I still think the modal theory is the best tool for understanding Irish music structure. As I said at the beginning--it has helped me. If it seems to hinder your progress or understanding, then I can see why you choose to exclude it... but that's just you and whomever else it happens to encumber. In other words; you can dismiss it for yourself, but not for everyone else.
"...musical anarchist"
Nope, Michael's the musical anti-christ.
Hmmm. I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else." It's not about telling people what they can or can't do, or what they should or shouldn't do. It's more about exploring the pros and cons of an approach to understanding this music.
As has been repeatedly said above, if the yardstick you're using leads you to think that the object you're measuring is "off," it could be that the object really is off. Or it might just be that the yardstick doesn't have all the needed tick marks to measure the object for what the object really is. In other words, it's the yardstick that's "off."
Cut a piece of wood to exactly one meter in length, measure it in inches, and it will seem like an odd length--39.3700787 inches. Why not round off to 39 inches? What's one-third of an inch? But measure it in centimeters or millimeters, and the length makes perfect sense, eh?
Just for fun, but actually to relieve some boredom, I went back to the 1st post from each in the circle of 3.
Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music of course, but it is handy to know if you want to be a competent backer. The only time the discussion has ever come up for me was usually in relation to finding the most supportive chord and understanding why backing a dorian tune is different than backing a minor tune, and how mixolydian is different than major.
November 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Extrapolating part of the music and shoehorning into a foreign system will not help you understand it.
November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Thanks for that, Michael. Again you've said exactly what I was thinking, and said it better than I would have.
"...until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be able to play them comfortably."
This applies to every aspect of the music, and it's wholly missing in people who learn this music from recordings and notation and theory, rather than immersion.
And it's rather pathetic for people to righteously thump their chests about their superior "understanding" of the music when their own experience of it is almost entirely based on recordings, notation, and theory.
November 11th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
I really don't think that the modes fall short. The discussion about "sweetened" tones does nothing to change my mind. Also I do not agree that Modulation, and accidentals have a blurry line in ITM. Just because musicians tend to improvise, I have not found it to change the key of the tune. At least, it is not any more blurry than say classical music. Classical music is usually only harmonically evaluated after the fact, much the same as ITM. There are a lot of right ways to name the chords in a Bach Chorale for instance. All of which could take into account all non harmonic tones and accidentals, which tend to follow certain patterns in both cases.
Earl, in the beginning you included Aeolian in your explanation of the modes in Irish traditional music. Could you be so kind as to provide some examples of which tunes & which players use this particular mode.
Cheers,
Ben
I think it was Schubert who really invented the best of what modulation is in his piano sonatas. He uses extraordinarily beautiful subtle additions of accidentals to gradually shift the tonal centre. Modulation is an incrementally specific and deliberately gentle movement of the tonal centre.
As opposed to key change which is merely a straight forward and instantaneous change of the tonal centre. (It's an important distinction.)
And straight forward mode change which makes use of, for example, keeping the tonal centre of D, but floating between your C and C sharp ... your major and minor third. A common thing in diddley music.
But I was tinkering with Garret Barry's jig today at work (with a muted tin whistle) and found that it neither modulates or specifically changes key or mode. It's such a terrifically enigmatic tune that certainly defies modal categorisation. The interchangeability of these runs:
XXXXXX, OOOOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXOOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXXOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
really is at the heart of it.
Sorry, I got those charts wrong, I meant the interchangeability of these runs:
XXXXXX, OOOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXXOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
Will writes: "I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else." It's not about telling people what they can or can't do, or what they should or shouldn't do."
~~~
"Oh, all well and good, but completely irrelevant to Irish trad." [~~~] "But trad ain't organised that way, and trad musicians don't think like that. So, my strong advice to anyone who wants to understand trad would be to ignore any system such as Earl has made. It will lead you astray." - ethical blend
"Extrapolating part of the music and shoehorning into a foreign system will not help you understand it." - Michael Gill
"I particularly didn't like Phantom Button's remark on the other thread where he said that knowledge of the modes was useful when determining whether a note breaks the rules." - Michael Gill
"Sorry Phantom, we've long since stopped using the physics rules to define scales and modes." - cboody
~~~
Some strong statements that set the tone of this thread. The message is clear: if YOU try to relate modal theory to Irish music, or physics to sound--YOU'RE wrong. Michael even pinpoints his target as, "YOU."
In my statements I tried to qualify it as something I do or that helps me; I don't condemn the understanding or approach outright. As for discussing people's different opinions on topics--I love that--I learn a lot when that happens. It's just the condescending and pedantic tone that drags these discussions down IMHO.
Agreed, Jack. But rather than returning fire in kind, but why not just hold to the high road instead of telling people they're "in denial" or some other derisive put down. If you want to reduce the condescension, consider what you bring to the dialogue.
And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button. Based on my reading of Daniel Levitin, Oliver Sacks, and other neuroscientists, I happen to disagree directly with your understanding of the place of physics in how pitch and intervals are perceived and used by musicians, so I can disagree with you, personally. But I'd hope we can be civil about that.
Finally, I've believed things that I thought were helping me that I later realized were a hinderance. Thanks to others for pointing out more constructive ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's hard to suspend one's own beliefs, even to just briefly consider other alternatives. And sometimes your posts here strike me as defensive and unwilling to genuinely consider other points of view. Maybe I'm just misreading you, but that's how it *sometimes* comes across.
Anyway, this has been a decent discussion. I've certainly learned something from Michael and cboody's posts, in particular.
Yes tunes in this mode are extremely rare. It is much more common in contemporary tunes such as Kate O'Brien's Larmor Plage in Gm (Aeolian). Traditional tunes that use the Aeolian mode tend to have few of whatever note makes them Aeolian, using it only as a passing tone. Tunes in E Aeolian usually only use a c for a passing tone or decoratively and/ or off the beat .
Those Paddy Fahey's are in my tunebook so I can find them on the site. this way each one is definitely a distinctive entry, any other way and I get lost
Will, don't think for a second that I'm interested in any lectures from you on how to conduct myself in here; you're hardly one to speak, and your own history of conduct here doesn't indicate your own experience is in any way exemplary. If Jeremy has anything to say to me then he can contact me himself; you are NOT his representative, nor are you a spokesmodel for this website.
Miss Lonleyhearts says : Anyway, this has been a decent discussion. I've certainly learned something from Michael and cboody's posts, in particular.
Thanks for these kinds words. And I have learned much from Miss Lonleyhearts! It is a treat to read comments substanciated by quotation from scholarly sources.
And I've learned a great deal from Michael and others too. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and articulate comments. While we may disagree from time to time the perspectives you bring are useful and enlightening to me. Now if it would just improve my finger wiggling.....
How in the world did you end up in Montana Miss Lonley? And, at the risk of starting the dots no dots thing have you access to the Montana Irish Tunes books?? (This is probably not the palce to respond but I do have the curiosity...)
Heh, which Montana Irish Tune books? If you mean the three volume "Helena Irish Session" set, then, yes, I can point you in the right direction.
I'm a US army brat, lived all over, including 3 years in Europe as a kid. But I was lucky enough to bump into Irish trad through house sessions at John Vesey's in Philadelphia, and then learn directly from a well known Irish fiddler in Portland, OR.
Montana? That's where my great-grandfather homesteaded 120 years ago, and so family vacations here kept me coming back till I simply stayed. Despite our distance from Cruise's Pub, we've had a decent session going here for 12 years.
Will writes: "And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button."
As usual, you completely missed my point and continue to obfuscate it rather than accepting or understanding what I was saying. You had said: "Hmmm. I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else."
The quotes I posted clearly demonstrated exactly that: I was pointing to Michael's statement and others where "you" is meaning everyone else and not me personally... dismissing it for "everyone else" and not me personally. As I said, I try to express my opinions as things that I do that help me... I don't dismiss outright what other people say or instruct them about how they are "wrong" and getting it wrong etc. Please read the comments before you take you errant positions on what was being said.
As I said, I have no problem with different opinions being expressed, and I rather enjoy them because I always come away having learned something, but the pedantry and condescension that comes from the usual contributers seems to be predictable and is completely unnecessary.
At this point I'd like to thank Earl Cameron for taking the time to start this thread and for his effort to post something he thought might be useful. It's a pity that nay sayers here thought it was necessary to tear it down or proclaim its irrelevance, but I applaud the effort. Even though the tradition might not refer to modes when they have conversations about the tunes, as PJ pointed out, it still can't be denied that modal theory is closely related to the tonal structure of Irish music nonetheless. Realizing this relationship neither means one doesn't appreciate or understand the nuances of Irish music, or that you can't play it "right." At the end of the day, understanding modal theory and its relationship to Irish music is yet another tool one can ether take advantage of or set aside. Again, thanks to Earl Cameron.
"I don't dismiss outright what other people say or instruct them about how they are "wrong" and getting it wrong etc. Please read the comments before you take you errant positions on what was being said." - posted by Phantom Button
"(The next post will no doubt say: "Anyone who uses modal theory to understand the subtleties of Irish music is getting it all wrong and depending on recordings and sheet music instead of sitting at the feet of the masters in Irish music holy places like Ireland or Montana.")" - posted by Phantom Button
"Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory." - posted by Phantom Button
" I think if you have anything to be "sad" about it's your own lack of knowledge about what has been said in this thread before you opened your mouth and placed your foot squarely inside." - posted by Phantom Button
I think it's interesting that within a minute of posting this thread, there was a counter thread "Modes and their stupid names." It's like some musicians, when you start to talk about theory, just fire off an alarm clock in their brain and go into fight or flight mode.
This may not be true, but such musicians that I have known in real life tend come across to me as not very good.
Such players can't back a tune because It has a chord that they
"haven't learned yet." Well...how do you not know how to make a Bb chord? can you make a C chord? yes. can you make a D chord? yes. Bb is the same chord down a whole step from C. Musicians who at least understand what basic theory is, don't have barriers to learning any music they want to learn, as long as they don't expect that music to conform to what they already know, and use what they know, to understand what the music itself is saying.
I know a guy who has played concertina for 5 years and can't play Spencil Hill. because he has to learn how to connect the notes together on his instrument, and that's a barrier that you must pass as a musician, to be able to play with intention. Using "western scales" I learned how to play a handful of tunes on the concertina within days, so that I could be equipped to teach him how to play, at least on the most rudimentary level. Like... where the notes are on the darned thing. I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to learn concertina by ear without a teacher to direct them. You really have to map out the notes, with each note being in 2 or 3 different places, it is a lot like guitar, once you learn them all, you can choose on the fly, which allows you to use desirable finger patterns and bellows direction.
Music may sound magical. But I heard once that magic is science that we don't understand yet. This dig us down into a spiritual argument. Is there a divine influence to life? and if so, is it attached to life, being life itself, or is it removed from or higher than life. Can we ever really "understand" it? probably not, but we can certainly understand a lot of things about it. Existence itself is elusive. I don't think that means we shouldn't try to understand, because in my experience, understanding cultivates appreciation.
Earl, I teach music for a living, I teach all sorts of theory, including standard western modal theory. It's especially appropriate for fixed pitch and fretted instruments that play chords.
I just find that I understand this music better when I don't impose foreign systems of theory and notation on it. But then I play fiddle, so all those "other" notes and timings and "ambiguities," integral as they are to this music, are available to me.
Sure, some people have a knee-jerk reaction against music theory. But some of the more enlightening comments on this thread came from several people who are highly educated in and who have a very good grasp of music theory.
FWIW, one of the modal charts posted here: http://www.slowplayers.org/SCTLS/modes.htm (and cited way above near the top of this thread) is one I put together some years ago.
I don't fault a person for wanting a rational explanation. I continue to study various musical theories. I think the brain may work in one way when discussing music & a different way when playing music. The latter also cultivates appreciation ~ not always in a form which can be put into words.
My favorite contribution to this thread is the one from PJ Doherty. He neither dismisses nor endorses Modal theory, but instead brings the question into focus by pointing out that he has never heard the theory being referred to in conversations trad players have about the music. I find that to be the case as well, but that still doesn't eliminate it from my personal consideration, especially since I have a background in music theory in general. Because I DID study music theory, I found modal theory very useful in gaining my personal understanding; it helped me pinpoint where the discrepancies as well as the things in common were. Does this mean I can't play the music or that I have it all wrong? Well, I suppose others would have their own opinions on this, but I feel I have gained insights into the enjoyment of the music both as a listener and player.
I have told my students that many irish tunes hinge on a pentatonic scale, and I show them what the basic pentatonic scales are along with the modes. They seem to benefit from this information, but I don't dwell on it as the music speaks for itself after that. Was I steering them astray by the mere mention of those things? Am I showing them the "wrong way"? Will they not get it right unless they repent and accept the music without any mention or consideration of modal theory? I guess we'll only know for sure on Judgment Day.
Miss Lonelyhearts, I know that you have some theory training as I have read your transcriptions on this site. The one I remember right now is Sparky's, or perhaps it was Jimmy's Return. You cannot accurately transcribe music without some form of theory that can be applied to every possibility. The Circle of Fifths is useful, because (at least for a 12 tone scale) it includes keys that include every possible note for a broad range of western music. And it falls somewhat short when it comes to chromatically altered keys such as Harmonic and Melodic Minor, and many many others. These keys must be chromatically altered because their key forms diverge from the Major scale pattern of whole steps and half steps, while modes do not.
Maybe it feels limiting to think that all of the "minor" tunes we know in this tradition are actually the Major scale, but it is also enlightening to know how many possibilities there are in one musical pattern, and how many more when alterations of that pattern are employed.
Earl writes: "I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to learn concertina by ear without a teacher to direct them."
~~~
Indeed, I spent the first 5 years teaching myself concertina without any guidance and when I met actual concertina players using the Irish system, I could see I had mapped it out incorrectly. The first clue was meeting and hearing Maureen Murtaugh, and then getting lessons from Noel Hill shortly after that. As it turned out I had applied my piano knowledge and western melodic logic to irish music and made it sound like the concertina was a piano keyboard instead of a concertina. I basically had to start over again and retool my entire approach.
Of course since it was concertina and being fixed pitch the problem I was having isn't related to the controversy in this thread. It was more about the discrepancies between a Western melodic approach and Irish concertina logic. One of the first things I noticed was how many rules were being broken, In other words, notes being used in triplets and other decorations were coming from all over the instrument rather than from the note above or below in the scale as was taught to me according to piano and other melody system logic. Noel acknowledged that the system was borrowing notes that defied logic at times, but he said he listened to pipers playing to get ideas about how to design his decorations and stylings to best function in context with the music.
In the case of the concertina, I DID try to "shoehorn" (as Michael put it) Western melodic logic into the concertina, and it WAS the wrong approach to take. But upon finally receiving actual instruction, knowing where I was "breaking rules" did facilitate my general understanding.
Re: Modes! But somewhat off topic. Actually completely off topic
Miss Lonely said: Heh, which Montana Irish Tune books? If you mean the three volume "Helena Irish Session" set, then, yes, I can point you in the right direction.
Yes it is the Helena Irish Session set I'm talking about. Probably the only ones from the state me thinks. And where are you in Montana?
Probably we should take this off the discussion list. I'm at
cboody at mchsi.com (obvious how to interpret that I think).
And, what is the protocol to take a discussion off list here?? Can anyone help me out?
Earl, the problem with submitting tunes here in abc is that you *have* to declare a key/mode to post the tune. That has nothing to do with the tunes themselves and everything to do with the conventions of abc notation and the way this site is set up. I don't have a problem with it--but it's a clear and obvious departure from how I think of and understand the tunes.
The Circle of Fifths is great for 90% of western music. I teach it all the time with my rock, punk, metal, bluegrass, and American music students. Not so much--not at all really--with people learning Irish traditional music.
I'll pm you cboody, but it's me you're looking for. I compiled the Helena Irish Session tunebooks. (See, I'm not the anti-dot, anti-theory, anti-Western conventions nazi some here paint me out to be. I just know when to apply that knowledge, and when it gets in the way of deeper understanding.)
I didn't realize a "deeper understanding" meant getting in touch with your inner child, Will. But do you really consider need yourself to be a "sarcastic 13 year old"? That might be just a tad too deep.
After 1 hour class was dismissed ;)
I have a theory about theory threads:
The classical model for discussing/illustrating musical progression is the keyboard. White keys & black keys. The circle of fifths, modulation of the tonic without changing key signature (modal theory), counterpoint, minor thirds, chord inversions.
I may even go as far as to say any musical theory may be illustrated perfectly on the piano keyboard. I do not dismiss the theories being mentioned in this thread.
I trust no one actually wants me to say what my theory is?
Possible not - but glad you have resumed putting the tilde in your changed subject lines. Otherwise we have to rely on a missing nose in the first line to know its you ;)
Controversial word's that should be excluded from discussions on this website;
1) Perform
2) noodle
3) mode
Warning: these words can cause some members to become over-excited and irrational if you relate them to traditional Irish music in any way, shape or form.
I don't think I "love it," but it is interesting and perplexing to me how using simple terms in here is like opening Pandora's Box. Sometimes I think perhaps people are just taking it all a bit too seriously. I love and respect the music as much as the next guy, and have devoted 30 years attempting to play it, but I don't feel like I have to stand guard with shield and sword to defend it. I find it interesting that the people that DO take such a hardline stand tend to be living in their own ITM outposts outside of Ireland. I have never witnessed irish people getting worked up like this over these terms or references.
The missing nose came up earlier ~ ;) as opposed to
The nose is not what I consider to be missing. I am paying homage to one of my favourites members. She tends to come around rarely. Cheers Ms. Lee
;)
Yer right, Jack. Michael, cboody, and I are precisely everything you say we are: irrational, in denial, over-excited, obsessive, humorless but silly know-nothings seething over our keyboards in backwater outposts far from the heart of Irish traditional music, typing every word with great gnashing of teeth. You are so remarkably insightful. Thank you for being the spokesmodel for the board and setting everyone straight.
It is incomprehensible why Jeremy lets me continue to post, since I am clearly such a resolute, perennial obstacle to rational, realistic, knowledge-based discourse. I should be banned forever.
Gee, Will, I guess you aren't reading your own posts now. Nowhere in that last post of mine is your name or anyone else, but you apparently saw yourself in it.
Will writes: "And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button."
Perhaps you should heed your own advice... or does it only apply to me and not yourself? Maybe if I had your "deeper understanding"... hmmmm?
Jack you are by far too clever for me. Thanks again to your prescience and sharp logic, I'm caught out again as the fool, and blind to boot.
I'm so hopelessly beneath the quality of discourse here, I'll just pack my bag and spend my time misinterpreting tunes and doing a disservice to the tradition I know so little about.
Thanks again Jack, for helping me see the error of my ways. Ta.
"I'll just pack my bag and spend my time misinterpreting tunes and doing a disservice to the tradition I know so little about."
These are your words and I've never heard anyone here imply any such thing about you. I hope your self esteem will benefit from your endeavors, whatever they may be.
One thing. Although Relative minors have little to do with what key a tune is in (At least it's a different relationship) Tunes in Major keys almost always borrow from the relative minor chord (possibly more often than the chord based off the dorian mode!?), so it's not removed from the music really. This music is played as though the relative minor key is a second above the tonic in terms of tunes that are played in a "minor" key, but in Major tunes the relative minor chord that is used more often in melodies is the chord based on the note a minor third below the tonic. That's why I was confused and thought there were more classically minor tunes than there actually are, now that I've been thinking about tunes I've been playing are minor or dorian, they are exclusively in the dorian mode, and when I find one that isn't it sounds out of place. But so many tunes seem to fake moving between Major to relative minor and back again is because they only have to avoid one note for that phrase where tonality shifts.
Dunno who's still reading this far but in case you missed it in the other thread, a plug for my tutorial on modes as found in Scottish music, with a few hundred examples in ABC:
Modes!
Modes!
OK, I thought I would post this as a guide to help folks with figuring out how the modes and keys fit together. First moving from C clockwise on the circle of fifths until the key of E major (The farthest I've ever seen a traditional tune "interpreted" on paper, as the three enharmonic key signatures B/Cb, F#/Gb, and C#/Db are almost never used in traditional music to my knowledge, and very rarely in general), and then moving from C Major counterclockwise. Major and Mixolydian keys will be written with capitalized letters, while Aeolian and Dorian keys will start with lowercase letters (besides the Bb dorian mode, because of a lack of an actual symbol for flat besides lowercase b )
C Major / a Aeolian / d Dorian / G Mixolydian ( 0 sharp )
G Major / e Aeolian / a Dorian / D Mixolydian ( 1 sharp ) F
D Major / b Aeolian / e Dorian / A Mixolydian ( 2 sharp ) F C
A Major / f# Aeolian / b Dorian / E Mixolydian ( 3 sharp ) F C G
E Major /c# aeolian / f# dorian / B Mixolydian(4 sharp ) F C G D
There are many patterns present in this table which are useful when attempting to memorize the keys and modes for example with no sharps, the A mode could be said to be Aeolian form. Add one sharp, and the A mode is now in dorian form, Add one more sharp, and now the A mode is Mixolydian. You can see it stair stepping down and to the right as we rotate clockwise around the circle of fifths.
Now the same table will be drawn rotating counter clockwise from C, also notice how the letter names of the notes and the first letter of the mode names themselves match for A and D in the key of C, These modes take their names from the beginning notes they were first applied to.
C Major / a Aeolian / d Dorian / G Mixolydian ( 0 flat )
F Major / d Aeolian / g Dorian / C Mixolydian ( 1 flat ) B
Bb Major / g Aeolian / c Dorian / F Mixolydian ( 2 flat ) B E
Eb Major / c Aeolian / f Dorian / Bb Mixolydian ( 3 flat ) B E A
Ab Major / f Aeolian / Bb Dorian / Eb Mixolydian ( 4 flat ) B E A D
Note how when we "move" counterclockwise on the circle the same mode patterns "move" backwards. With 0 flats the G mode is in Mixolydian form, with 1 flat, in Dorian form, 2 flats, in Aeolian form.
Two other patterns are worth pointing out, or more accurately it is one pattern interpreted in two ways. If we were to follow the ascension of sharps all the way through the enharmonic keys those sharps would occur in the order F C G D E A B, and if we follow the ascension of flats in the same fashion
(counterclockwise, in the opposite direction from C of course)
they would occur in the order of B E A D G C F, which is the same but backwards. This is really how the circle of fifths work, and I hope this is helpful to those who are trying to have a clearer picture of how keys are organized together
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Good man! Now about modes for dummies?
When the guitar player says "Oh, yeah, Morrison's, that's in the key of E Minor" what he means is that it's in the key of D but the mode of e Dorian.
When the guitar player says "Oh yeah, that's Scotch Mary, that's in the key of A minor" what he means is that it's in the key of G but the mode of a Dorian.
When the guitar player says "Oh yeah, that's The Glass of Beer, that's in the key of B minor" what he means is that it's in the key of D but in the mode of b Aeolian.
Being a dummy myself, it helps me, because I used to also refer to the key signature of tunes by what chord was used the most in accompanying the tune, even though it’s wrong.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Modes!
Earl, your tables would be even nicer if the columns went either:
Major/Mixolydian/Dorian/Aeolian or Aeolian/Dorian/Mixolydian/Major.
That way the diagonal pattern you describe wouldn't have to wrap around in the fourth step. It also illustrates more clearly the progression from Major to Minor or vice versa through the intermediate modes, Mixolydian being 1/3 and Dorian being 2/3 of the way from Major to Minor.
The only other thing I'd like to mention is that clockwise and counterclockwise have no intrinsic meaning here and are as likely to confuse as to illuminate. It would be clearer to say "in the direction of increasing sharps" instead of "clockwise". It's merely convention (and I don't even know how widespread) to equate them. The former is unambiguous; the latter requires the reader to know or guess the convention.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by GaryAMartin
Re: Modes!
Nicely put Earl. I put a bit of effort into figuring modes out a couple of years ago, but find others not so interested - they would rather just know if it's major or minor, and beyond that they think its too hard.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Bredna
Re: Modes!
Thanks Earl, that will be very useful.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by All Moldy
Re: Modes!
SWFL Fiddler: you're misusing the term "key". The keys of the tunes you mentioned ARE E, A and B. What you mean is that the key SIGNATURE is the same as IF the tunes had been in D major, G major, and D major. The key signature is the collection of notes that are sharped or flatted. The key is the tonic, or home tone. The mode is the pattern of half and whole steps in the scale from tonic to tonic. Any two of those three pieces of information determines the third.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by GaryAMartin
Re: Modes!
Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music of course, but it is handy to know if you want to be a competent backer. The only time the discussion has ever come up for me was usually in relation to finding the most supportive chord and understanding why backing a dorian tune is different than backing a minor tune, and how mixolydian is different than major.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
You are certainly right Gary, and I must confess I think I chose the order based on which keys were most relavent to classical music first, because in classical music theory dorian and Mixolydian are both irrelevant (I studied classically but was frustrated at the way modes were put on the back burner and described rather archaically , . If you ask your theory teacher how to write the key signatures for modes they will tell you something which does not match the convention used by traditional musicians, and that I have mapped out above. I just want to use the tools of the classical scholars to describe traditional conventions, in the way it is usually done though not widely understood.
Regarding rotating the circle of fifths, I regret I don't have the ability to post a picture on the forum of the circle. I know the circle is scary to most people, but you could look at it as a map with the easiest key in the center, and the more difficult keys to right and left of it, but truly once you explore farther to the extremes of either end, C no longer is any simpler than f# dorian.
here is what I mean:
Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E
using this "row of 5ths" you could build this table
Major : Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E
Mixolydian : Eb Bb F C G D A E B
dorian : Bb F C G D A E B F#
aeolian : F C G D A E B F# C#
so there you go, feel free to post your own version in this thread, I think the more we break this stuff down, the less of a mystery it is to all of us.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
ah I see the forum decided to ignore all the extra space I put between notes to make it look clear, but I will point out the keys are arranged so that the modes ascend in a perfect diagonal pattern as you suggested. before I was merely noticing what was accidental, but this new order also prioritizes keys closer to the order in which they are used in Traditional music
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Hmmm. I wonder if my "Minor Feel" thread had anything to do with this one. Nah! I'm not that important. Still...
Anyway, thanks for that, Earl. I like it. I'll still probably not be an expert on modes, but this makes sense.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: Modes!
All grand but I have just been learning a version of Scotch Mary with the first part in D major and the second part in A dorian. Certainly none of it is in the key of G. Looking at the comments section for that tune there seem to be quite a variety of versions listed.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Modes!
There are some pretty clear rules in the school of music theory, which can be applied to determining a mode or key when accidentals are present.
In melody analysis there are some very specific uses of accidentals that never affect the key signature, and can be overlooked in harmonic analysis. They are neighbor tones, passing tones, suspensions (which only apply when chord, or some sort of harmony is also present), escape tones, anticipation tones, appogiaturras, and the renegade "free tone,"
Before describing what these all mean I will point out, these were originally used to describe what was happening "expos facto" or after the music was already written. It was only later in music writing that these "rules" were applied as tools useful for the composer in melody writing. It is my opinion that this theory is not intended to limit the possibilities for melody writing or interpretation. certainly what is not explained in the context of these non harmonic tones can be explained by temporary key or meter change, which is always a possibility when analyzing or writing music. I would, however, always look for the simplest explanation for why the music is doing what it's doing as much as possible.
The neighbor tone is a tone which occurs on the division or subdivision of the beat which is one diatonic note above or below the preceding note and following note, which are the same, for example the second beat first measure of the B part of Morning dew is often played with this triplet...
X:1
M: 4/4
K: D
| eB (3BAB) eBfB|
this is relevant because a neighbor tone is "allowed" to be chromatically altered to be closer to the main pitch. This can and should be used when considering whether an accidental in a tune should affect the key. Is it a note that is in between two notes of the same pitch? Is it on a beat?
Passing tones are tones which are added to fill in places in a melody where the notes of said melody are ascending or descending by a third. so rather than a melody line Acde, a passing tone is added between A and C to create a more pleasing scale like movement. so you get (3ABc de. Like neighbor tones passing tones are often altered chromatically to bring them closer to the note they are moving to. this also occurs in traditional music very frequently, and can be used to be explained notes on the beat as well as middle notes of ascending or descending triplets
Before going into appogiaturras and escape tones, I want to explain something about the difference between minor keys and the aeolian mode that is often unnoticed by trad musicians.
In classical music a melody in the aeolian mode would be referred to as being in a natural minor scale. The natural minor scale is the form of the minor scale that is not altered, but often in music the minor scale is altered for various reasons which i may or may not get into. The convention for this alteration involves, in the context of the melody, raising the 6th scale degree and the 7th scale degree when the melody is moving higher, and naturalizing both notes when the melody is moving lower. Now determining which way a melody is moving at any point is not always clear cut, which is why despite all of this, music is still an art as much as a science. But if you were to look at some more modern tunes (and possibly some old ones) that are in the aeolian mode, or natural minor key, you can find many examples of these tones being altered in precisely this way. Coleraine Jig comes to mind...
A more general rule of thumb is that when a note is anticipating or moving towards another note in a stepwise fashion, it can often be chromatically altered to be closer to it, as you will see frequently in Paddy Fahey tunes, and other "composed" tunes.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Yeah, actually your thread had quite a bit to do with it. my brain got all cloudy and I had to do some mental organizing. I think my main train of thought here is that keys are what we use to know which notes are predominantly sharp or flat, and modes are tools for knowing what the "tonic" note is. In classical theory a tonic can only be Ionian or Aeolian, that is Major, or minor, and dominant VII chords are not used, only the Major dominant V chord is used in both Major and minor keys.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
No Cause
Melodies can and do change keys, usually to keys which are adjacent in the circle (or the "row") of fifths.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Great - and what's your point caller?
Sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. All I said was I have a version of Scotch Mary in D major. I quite like it.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Modes!
Oh, I realized you were talking about a previous comment anyway. I thought you were saying something to the effect of the system not being applicable to your example.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
I think I've been reading too much of that counterthread, at least there isn't too much controversy here yet. lets keep it that way.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Not at all. There are loads of tunes that change key or shift mode. A common one would be from D major to E dorian eg The Antrim Rose or The Wise Maid (the Scottish tune I posted a while back).
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Modes!
Oh, all well and good, but completely irrelevant to Irish trad. For instance, why cite the 'circle of fifths'? Earl says it himself - "I just want to use the tools of the classical scholars to describe traditional conventions". Great. No point, but great.
The 'circle of fifths' has to do with intonation and temperament systems, going back to Pythagoras, and, according to some, before that also. It doesn't really have to do with keys, except that it has been used by philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists to help develop the various systems of temperament which have been used at different times in history.
But trad ain't organised that way, and trad musicians don't think like that. So, my strong advice to anyone who wants to understand trad would be to ignore any system such as Earl has made. It will lead you astray.
I like No Cause's "I have a version of Scotch Mary in D major. I quite like it". Now THAT's how trad musicians think. Much more useful.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Extrapolating part of the music and shoehorning into a foreign system will not help you understand it.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Right,
I discover this thread after posting in the other one... Sh*te.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Fanning
Re: Modes!
Here are clear and simple tables explaining modes. Links to these tables are found in several session.org threads on modes.
http://www.slowplayers.org/SCTLS/modes.htm
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by joesmith
Re: Modes!
I don't want to argue why its useful for understanding traditional music, just that classical music theory didn't disregard modes because it can't be used to understand them, it can, and it is not overly complicated. If you ever refer to a tune as being in Dorian or Mixolydian mode, you are using this theory, I was simply making a complete map, which I have never seen anywhere. The one I have seen that came close, left some modes such as f# dorian, in which key I happen to know one tune, the JB reel. I would have never been able to learn this tune without acknowledging that it was played in this key. It didn't intuitively fall under my fingers because it is the only tune I've ever learned in that mode. I have seen it transcribed in different keys, probably due to the fact that f# dorian is a far out key that most of us rarely if never touch.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Phantom Button, I think understanding the modes can be of great benefit to those who play melody, and not just those who accompany or harmonize. Understanding the keys and modes, and tonal centers of the tunes helps the melodist understand which notes are the most important to the melody, which can and should be accented, which are less important, and can even be modified. Of course, most who play this music learn to find those characteristics by instinct. But it still can be useful to understand why certain notes sound 'righter' than others, and what the different scales are that underly the music.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
For a fiddler the JB reel would have a completely different feel to it when played in F#dor than it would in Gdor (in which key it is posted on this website). Playing in F#dor would give a different resonance to the instrument than would Gdor, and there would be other issues to do with fingering and use (or not) of open strings which would also affect the tone colour.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: Modes!
Yes, but that's the key you have to play it in to play along with the Altan recording.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Again, not sure ho helpful that is. You've cited a modern, composed, Scottish tune.
And how did you learn it? (I see you've only just learnt it in the last month or so.) 'Cos if you'd learnt it properly, by getting the sound of the tune in your head, I can't see what difference it would make to know what key/mode it's in. You'd just know the tune.
I mean, it's interesting, if you understand it, which I don't think you can from the above table, but I reckon a decent trad musician would play the tune perfectly well without even thinking about what key/mode it was in.
And I don't agree about classical music theory either. It may be possible to "shoehorn" (Llig's word) trad modes into something that resembles classical music theory, but it's not a good place to start, if you actually want to understand trad, or even the modes on which it's based.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Earl, I found your 'melody analysis' post fascinating and relevant to the puzzled thoughts that come into my head regarding what melodies do. Such thoughts as "so what scale (or set of notes) is this bit of tune really working with ". Thanks for that, I don't think it has figured here very much. But it in no way relied on what was in your first post - unless one chooses to look at that way.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
"Phantom Button, I think understanding the modes can be of great benefit to those who play melody"
I agree, my point is that it isn't essential.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Phantom Button
Trying to draw the circle...
..................Am.................
...........Dm..............Em........
...................C.................
..............F........G.............
......Gm......................Bm.....
...........Bb.............D..........
.....................................
.....Cm...Eb...............A...F#m...
.....................................
...........Ab.............E..........
......Fm.....................C#m.....
..............Db..Gb...B.............
..................F#.................
..........Bbm............G#m.........
..................Ebm................
..................D#m................
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Ramiro
Re: Modes!
It works, sort of...
It looks ok if you choose a monospaced font.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Ramiro
Re: Modes!
There are three main problems with going down this route of analysis.
Firstly, I dislike the term accidental. It's not just the word, it's the inference. It describes a particular note in a tune as being somehow additional, and not integral.
Secondly, it ignores the areas in between what are usually called "notes that are in tune". The space between Cnat and Csharp, for example is very important with this music. The mode system is a straight jacket against this. I can think of a few tunes that are described as having an accidental Fnat. But what really should be happening is that there is just a cheeky little bending up of the Enat to somewhere not quite the Fnat.
Thirdly, the whole system is built around the concept of the route. A lot of tunes simply don't have them. And a lot of tunes disguise them. And even with the tunes where the route is clear cut, part of the art of playing them can be to not make them so obvious.
With Western art music, there are distinct differences between modulation, key/mode change and accidental. Not so with this music, the lines between these three are blurred and should remain open.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I think something along those lines may well have been what I was getting at. Or, if it wasn't, was something I would have liked to have added.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Is llig's "Thirdly..." the reason for problems from unsympathetic (or maybe any) backing - it can 'give the game away' by filling in gaps that the melody has left empty or by implying a route ( ? same thing).
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Yes david it is. It kind of gives the strummer the green light to fill in the gaps. There was a post further up about a tune that was apparently routed in Gmaj, but had no Cnats in it. So the modal theory gives the strummer the "permission" to put the C in the chords. Wrong in my opinion.
The gaps in the harmony are very important to tunes, to their openness, to their freedom, to their integrity. Strummers should always remember that the music is complete without them. That's not to say I don't enjoy good strumming, I do, but the best strummers appreciate that the art is not to "complete" the harmony. Go with what the tune has. Don't construct additions based on theory.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I'm not being picky, but do you mean "route" or "root", Llig? It's just you've confused me with that last post ...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Hmm. That's an interesting ambiguity.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Ha, yeah. I'm glad you picked me up on that. Yes, I meant root. But I think I must have subconsciously meant route also. I like it.
Are tunes routes to roots? Some are, some aren't. And I like the idea that a tune can be routed in Gmag, in that everything about it points to the root of G, but without actually getting there.
The Virginia is a good example. I'd say it's routed in Gmaj, but it never resolves to its root. And the lack of a Cnat or a Csharp anywhere makes for futher ambiguity. The second part makes people think it's in Dmaj (it's written in this data base here as being in Dmaj) but I think this is a mistake.
So strummers who believe what they sead here think it's in Dmaj and, according to their charts, begin the tune with a Bmin chord and it totally ruins it
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Hmmm, that's interesting. I think that it is, in fact, in D, (but never really resolves to its root) ... But ... I totally agree that the first chord is 'orrible if it's B min. It should be G, or something else that's ambiguous enough not to wreck it. Love that tune ...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
"In music theory, the term key is used in many different and sometimes contradictory ways."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)
/thread
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Modes!
There is a Dougie MacLean song that I learned years ago that doesn't even have the root chord in the song. Can't remember what one it is just now and given that this is a tunes website I will not dwell on it but I found it interesting that there would be a song that plays around a key without hitting the root (unless you were to resolve it at the end of the song).
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Modes!
llig and ethical -
Help me out here, please. I am a musician for years that has never really been a master of music theory, I've always played based more on feel, and if someone asks me detailed questions about theory I will generally either change the subject or fake my way through. As I'm learning tunes and some are sounding good to me and some are not, these little bits of mode explanation do help me understand somewhat, for whatever reason. The two of you seem to suggest that learning completely by ear is the only way, and that all trad players think the same (or roughly, anyway). I'm not working against you, really, but this strikes me as odd and unlikely. I have known some trad players who would seem to fall outside of your description who are splendid. I have learned a few tunes strictly by ear, and a few with the help of dots and modal knowledge, and honestly, a couple of the ones learned with the help of the dots are coming out quite good and others not so good. Overall I'm moving toward learning by ear more and I do see the benefits. I dont' know what the answer is, but I just find it hard to believe that all trad players learn strictly by ear and all think the same. It would seem to me that even the players who disregard the talk of modes know more about them than they let on, and even utilize this knowledge, even if they don't know the names of them.
Again, I'm learning here, so I welcome your input and indeed to point out where I may be mistaken or misguided. Thanks.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: Modes!
I keep going wrong with this site - I type things and they disappear ... must be doing something wrong, Daresay I'll get used to it ... anyway, here goes again:
I reckon a lot of trad musicians know all about the modes, know what mode a particular tune is in, etc etc. But that doesn't mean that trying to "shoehorn" (I like that analogy) trad tunes into classical music theory is any use at all. And thinking about it while trying to play a tune would be a no-no, I reckon. You play a tune because you have it running through you, as it were, like nursery rhymes. This can happen minutes after hearing the tune, mind you.
I very much doubt if all trad players think the same, but all the good ones play "from the heart", ie, just let the tune out of them because they can hear it. (This also means, not coincidentally, that they can play about with it at the same time.) I wasn't - here at any rate - saying anything about dots at all ...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Jimmy, a very very small percentage, lets say 5%, of what makes up the music is in the dots. So any half decent player who says they learn by reading sheet music is only telling you that they learn 5% by sheet music. The other 95% is learned by ear. There is no other way to learn that lion's share. A lot of that 95% can be difficult to fathom at times, especially if you are not familiar with the style. Harder in fact than the 5% of it you could learn off the paper. So if you are having trouble hearing the 5% you could get off the paper and feel you need to resort to it, how are you gonna be able to get the rest of it?
I think that we came up with a reasonable distilation of the music/ears argument after one of our long and sometimes bitter arguments, and that was: "It's OK to use sheet music, just so long as you don't need it".
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Hear the tune, play the tune. The rest are words. Enjoy them, increase your understanding with them, but you can't play tunes with words.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Modes!
Or dots.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Modes!
Llig, Is it possible to 'get' any of your 95% by listening to a tune without trying to play it, or even thinking of trying to playing it ?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Lovely, thanks. From the heart, that really says it all. It's no mystery that the tunes I love and are ingrained in my head are the ones I tend to play better.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: Modes!
http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/ethno/celtic/mp3/Celtic-Mouth-Music_06.mp3
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by joesmith
Re: Modes!
I know you addressed it to Llig, David, but since I have an opinion ...
I reckon it's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
But back to the Virginia. I guess it doesn't really matter whether one thinks the tune's root is D or G seeings as it never resolves to either. But it's route to not resolving is a different thing, and that's what can mislead the strummer into the Bmin at the start. Because there are no Cnats or Csharps, you make your choice between the tune beginning on the major third of the root, or the relative minor of the root. You could say the first part is in G and the second part is in D? But does it sound like it changes key half way through? Does it sound like a key change if you follow it with a tune in Dmaj? I'm not sure. And I like being not sure. It's a brilliant tune.
I think that what I'm trying to get at is that tunes such as this defy rigid structure. And the beauty of it is that that's one of the things that makes them so wonderful and alluring.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I agree, yes, it's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it. My dad does it, he understands the music very deeply and he's never played a note.
However, once you've got that 100% firmly in your noggin and then pic up the instrument, you can start down the road of 110%.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
And if it's a good tune, you'll never be finnished with it.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
[got logged of pasting this and posting it anyway even though I have crossed]
) to learning tunes that jig interrupted a week or so back.
Ethical, that's related to the 'conversation' about routes (
I do get some of the 95% (using llig' s figure) before I pick up the instrument. And I get a lot of the 5% quickly, but some only in a way that tells me if I am playing it wrong. There is a lot of the 100% I don't think I will ever get until I can play a 'lowest common denominator' version at tempo along with a recording ( I may cheat a bit on the tempo...). I don't recoginse some things for what they are until I hear them against myself playing at the right(ish) tempo, metre and rhythm. That, I think, is lack of experience.
So if I have to hunt and peck for some notes after dozens of hearing I may as well start doing that early on, 'tutorial style' with a recording and the pause button so as to get onto the fun bit all the sooner.
And some people may use dots.
But I was really after a yes or no from llig because I want to find a flaw in his logic over the 5%.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
So if someone can get to 100% without ever having played a note can they just pick up an instrument and play the tune ? And if not then whilst 'hunt and peck' might be the best route would looking at the dots lose any of the 100%.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
the 5% / 95% is only an illustration. You miss the point if you want to quibble with the figure.
"If I have to hunt and peck for some notes after dozens of hearing I may as well start doing that early on."
This attitude only perpetuates you not getting those elusive notes sooner.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I'm not quibbling the figure, I was using yours as an example because it doesn't matter.
"This attitude only perpetuates you not getting those elusive notes sooner."
No, quite the contrary, the sooner I try 'hear it then play it' the better I get at 'hear it then play it'. And the sooner I learn to hear differences between what I am doing and what someone else is doing the sooner I learn to fit in at a session.
Who was it who said something along the lines of "the way to get good at something is by practising it" ?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
... hear and adjust to the differences ...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
I think llig and ethical blend have the sense of it.
It's perhaps only a small point but I'm not persuaded that "a lot of trad musicians know all about the modes, know what mode a particular tune is in". Perhaps they do, but in all the years I've been playing and teaching I can only recall a few occasions when someone attempted to ascribe a mode to a tune and I can't think of anyone who uses it as an aid to teaching other than as a mention in passing. I'm not generalising from the particular and saying no-one does, but I don't believe it's common practice. Certainly I've never heard my parents or grandparents or anyone I play with regularly refer to the mode of tune (and my mother teaches classical piano and music theory to degree level). It's much more common to categorize tunes in terms of key and tune "family" i.e. the resemblances between phrases in seemingly different tunes e.g. "it's a Galway version of Lord Gordon only the turn goes . . . ".
Like the "are sessions performances?" and the "can you learn from dots?" discussions it seems to be a topic that exercises the virtual community much more than musicians sat around the table top.
Jimmy B, for what it's worth, I'm pretty certain that I've never met a trad musician who hasn't used notation to learn a tune from something like Ceol Rince or the Goodman collection, or as an aide-mémoire for their pupils; even Padraig O'Keefe had "The Code". But I'm equally certain that most trad musicians would agree that the best way to learn a tune is from someone sat in front of you, all the more so when you're just starting out as it "requires negotiation and imagination. It requires you to know that what is written is a mere mnemonic, not an actual performance (it is impossible to transcribe an actual performance), nor the dynamic pulse of what it can be when it's played and head and danced. You have to go by your experience of other tunes which seem to have the same shape, and to perceive when this particular tune is different, and the value of that difference. You also have to contemplate the possibility that a tune's notation my be written "wrongly" - "wrong", here, meaning out of character or sympathy with the genre. For while there is no ultimate correctness in traditional music, there is wrong: the attempts of such as Yehudi Menuhin or James Galway to play "simple" Irish hornpipes. for example. Such interpretations are simplistic and one-dimensional - they ignore the possibilities. They take the tune as read whilst a traditional musician plays the tune as heard.", Ciaran Carson, from the superb "Last Night's Fun".
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by PJ Doherty
Re: Modes!
PJD: “…exercises the virtual community much more than musicians sat around the table top.”
My experience, too. As I’ve said before, I find the mode terminology occasionally useful in discussion. I could just as well say “rarely useful,” since I encounter so few people in meatspace who know, or care about, the terminology. In my own head, my experience has been pretty much as the Rev described in the other modes topic – interesting, useful in organizing thoughts, etc. Useful, but not important.
The topic comes up here because here we discuss (and argue) instead of playing the music. If every session had a one-hour discussion period, it would come up there, too. But then hardly anybody would come back the next week.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Modes!
To my mind in the best seisiúns one can easily spend a hour spread over three talking about music. After all, they're essentially occasions for socializing not music making. And modes still rarely if ever come up!
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by PJ Doherty
Re: Modes!
Well, if you’re not dedicating session time to discussing dots vs ears, the fine points of modal theory and whether what you’re doing is a performance, then all I can say is you’re wasting precious time!
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Modes!
My point is, that's not what trad musicians talk about. It's more like "Where'd you get that setting from?", "How does that variation go?". "Did you hear that young Italian lad at the All Ireland?", "Is that one of Johnny's?", "What did you think of Harry's new record?", "Are you going up for the Trad Fest?", "What did you do with the first part of the turn the second time round?", "I remember when I first heard Paddy Canny playing that. We were up in LIstowel . . .", "How's your daughter making out with that new flute?", "Do you have the fifth part for Cregg's?", "Did I hear you were planning at the wedding on Saturday?", "Doesn't Begley put that with Johnny An Gabha?". and so on, and so on. It's always been as much about the talk about the music as its been about playing the music. You're in a pub, a public space, there's drink, its a social occasion. If you really want to make good music then you take it back to your kitchen. That's the way it's been done for fifty years.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by PJ Doherty
Re: Modes!
Ah, well, you're obviously missing the windup artists and the trolls.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Modes!
For future searching and additional windup ~
Discussion: modes, and their stupid names.
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/23035
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by rumpole
http://www.thesession.org/members/display/50744
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by ceolachan
Re: Modes!
"Secondly, it ignores the areas in between what are usually called "notes that are in tune". The space between Cnat and Csharp, for example is very important with this music."
I disagree, understanding the modes doesn't ignore those notes but rather helps you understand them better by identifying where they are exactly and the fact that they are slightly off the scale. Understanding where "rules" are broken and why only adds to one's understanding.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I personally would never write a flat or sharp in a key signature, if it wasn't even in the tune, in that case. I would never play a Bb chord over a tune in d Dorian, especially if that tune contained no B notes
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
I don't think your point is a small point, PJ. I guess what I was saying is that people know about these things, but yes, I agree, they dont think about them much. As for talking about them? Well, that would be a bit dull compared with "Who did you get that from. I have that second part like this. Have you heard that old major setting of the Star of Munster? Gosh! Nobody seems to play that one these days - haven't heard it for years. Thanks."
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Phantom Button, A rather late reply I know, but I addressed you directly, and you came back and clarified, and I just wanted to say that it looks like we are saying the same thing in different ways, so we are indeed in agreement.
Like llig and Phantom Button said above, sometimes the most fun is in the tunes that defy convention, that waver between one mode and the next, tunes like Blarney Pilgrim and Earl's Chair.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
We probably wouldn't have this discussion if everyone played a single version of each tune. Tunes change.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
~
which is why the best tunes are effing ineffable.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Llig, if you saw the sheet music for a tune you never heard before you would be unable to play that tune?
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Modes ~ what modes?
Music is subjective, so any attempt to illustrate it with ratios is probably misleading. Fair play Llig, regarding the illustration, but your math sucks.
Jimmy, play by ear. When I play by ear something happens & I just get to *know* the tune. Variations in articulation become easier than if I learned from a written version. My phrasing & the fluidity of the tune is more comfortable, without the visual reference. I could go on, simply trust your ears (even when you think you cannot) & you will find some good crack with that.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Llig's maths is a red herring. The daftness of referring to a proportion of a tune in one dimension from 0 to 100% is shown by him going on to 110%. If it wasn't off-topic I was going to try to get llig or ethical blend to explain what was in their 100 percents. E.G. all the variations in the source ? There will be another chance I'm sure.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Transcribing music is similar to mapping. You can jot down a few lines & circles to lead you. Though, once you hit the road you'll always discover more. Hence ~ 110%
I was trying to find Ed Harris' enthusiastic reply when he accepted his 1st space mission, as John Glenn in "The Right Stuff." He offered to give something like 110%, Sir!
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Space between
~ Is it possible to bend notes on concertina?
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Modes ~ off topic again, sorry!
"Bending Notes can you do it?"
http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1852&s=7fb3ebab4ba72385b10808e4e5fddf16
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
110% is a figure of speach not maths. If you want some maths - and a mapping analogy - think fractals. How long is the coast of Ireland ?
I reckon knowing 100% of a tune is like saying you walked round [insert your favourite island] - you can always do it again and put in a few more twists and turns. And someone can always say you cut some corners.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by david_h
Ionian, Phrygian, Lydian, & Locrian too!
Let's just say I enjoy the field work of geography more than the actual drafting. With Greenland & the Antarctic warming up the Irish coast will likely become shorter, unless there are even more twists & turns? Fractals,eh?
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Yes, but it seems there are folks who won't let you step out of the door unless you already know what you will find round every corner, and where's the fun in that ?
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Random, Of the last ten posts, seven are yours! You are starting to hold a conversation with yourself, here. Time to take a trip to the local and spend some time with real people instead of the internet!
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by AlBrown
I noticed
On weekdays people are always escaping their work & talking up a storm on thesession. Weekends tend to be slow. Al, I was out twice already & I had an opportunity to talk to quite a few friends.
Cheers, though. Now, if I could just find someway to have Llig give me a straight answer we might have a good site yet. Not that I don't find him charming. ;)
I am in the pub right now waiting for a download of "The Right Stuff" The beer is cold & the company is good.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Random_notes
Earl (regarding OP)
For future reference;
♭♯♮
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Aye, I try to spend weekends not hanging around the internet. During the week I have to be at the computer anyway pretending to do work so usually leave a window open to thesession.org and another on my email. How lame am I?
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Modes!
I also don't have an iPhone or any malarky that would allow me to be online while at the pub. Thank f*ck for that.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Modes!
How did you type those?
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
I am at work right now doing some overtime on one of my regular days off. Since it is slow and there is nothing for me to do (temporarily), I am reading some of the discussions.
Despite all of my music theory training and classes as well as the fact that I am a good sight reader, I still find that using my ear is more dependable and reliable than my training and sight reading skills.
"I also don't have an iPhone or any malarky that would allow me to be online while at the pub. Thank f*ck for that"
You're welcome Miss Emily.
I don't have a fancy iPhone either--just something which I can talk into if someone wants to have a conversation with me.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by fauxcelt
Thanks Al B! attn. Earl C.
Silver Spear, no worries. I don't have an answering machine or television at home & no internet. I take a laptop & take it to the "Beach Hut" for a shark bite & celebration ale. This morning, I am outside at the coffee shop down the street. Seems weird to me too.
Earl, the symbols are from the Character Map.
On Windows;
Start Menu > Accessories > System Tools >
Character Map > Font: Arial Unicode MS
✓ Advanced View
Group by: Unicode Subrange > Symbols & Dingbats
or you can copy this > ♭♯♮ > & paste where needed.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
♭♯♮
I'm not adding to the discussion. I just wanted to see if it worked on my mac. I always write Bflat of Cnat
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
♭♯♮
Cool. That worked on my Mac as well.
I don't have TV, an answering machine, a landline, or Broadband of any sort (is it just me or is this beginning to sound like that Four Yorkshiremen sketch?). I use a dongle or the McDonald's across the street's wifi to faff online while at home.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Modes!
But it looks like a PC has to have the appropriate font loaded. Just turning off the old laptop I have hooked up to the stereo for BBC iplayer etc and all I'm seeing is a pair of horizontal lines. Copy and past gives
♭♯♮
which show as squares
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
You means macs are better than PCs? Heaven forbid
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I am in Firefox browser with the View > Character encoding set on Unicode (UTF -8)
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
So then, what's the symbol for a note about 30% sharp of E♮ and 70% flat of F♮?
And what's the symbol for the note halfway between C♮ and C♯?
I particularly didn't like Phantom Button's remark on the other thread where he said that knowledge of the modes was useful when determining whether a note breaks the rules.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
It was something about understanding why the rules are broken. Not much fun, that.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
It's like someone who does that silly olympic walking thing, (you know the one, where you waggle you hips and generally mince about) telling someone who's running that they are breaking the rules.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I'm not convinced that cramming things into modes works particularly well with Trad music, especially the Dorian mode. If you look at tunes in E Minor (Dorian) the c# is used most of the time as a leading note into a D, rather than a strong note on it's own. It also usually falls on the "and" of beats 2 or 4.
If as a backer you start using chord substitution (and the type and frequency is a matter of personal taste), then the most common chord substitution used for the Em chord is Cmajor7. Yet E dorian has a C#. Try using a C#m7b5 (the chord built from the c# in E Dorian) and it sounds sh*te.
Having said that, the Cmajor7 has become so overused that it now drives me to distraction.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by woops
Re: Modes!
Michael, there is no symbol for a pitch that falls outside of the modes as they have been identified unless you endeavor to invent one. You can only understand where they are by knowing what the scale degrees are and why those notes fall outside of it, hence, where the rules are broken. I'm sorry if this spoils the fun for you and Random, but sometimes the facts aren't all fun and games perhaps. Besides that, the note you are attempting to identify is only an option to begin with and not necessary to play the tune.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Yeah for christ sake .. I couldn't agree more. I'll happily vomit all over anyone who plays a feckin Csharpmajorsevenwithaflattenedfifth.
And the Cmaj7 substitution for Emin, and of course the other ubiquitous Fmaj7 substitution for Amin are so hackneyed and predictable these days.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
C#m7b5 (in E Dorian) ~ you're joking, right?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Button, you miss the point of the analogy. People were running long before people invented the rules for walking.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Jack, musical theory is conceptual, not factual.
Playing music there are numerous options. It is fun, unless we missed another rule.
Cheers!
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
No. If you use scale tone thirds from the C#, you get C#-E- G, which is a C# diminished triad. If you add another scale tone third (B) it becomes a C#m7b5.
The chords built from the E Dorian Mode are Em F#m G A Bm C#dim and D. If you add the seventh they become Em7 F#m7 Gmaj7 A7 Bm7 C#m7b5 and Dmaj7.
Me, I like simple chords that follow the tune. Actually, most of the time I prefer no chords at all.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by woops
Re: Modes!
woops, you're stretching musical theory as far as you can. Do you actually have an example of a tune (E Dorian) where a backer has played that chord? I know I shouldn't ask.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Why would you substitute for the tonic (main chord)? See theory has to do with context and taste too. Anyone who is substituting the tonic better have a very firm grip on the tune and the subtleties of it's unique harmonic rhythm before even bothering to try. The best way to be expressive as a backer is by following the tune so closely in rhythm with your chord changes (often on the offbeat, sometimes not on a beat at all, sometimes 4 or more changes crammed into the last measure of a phrase) and choices (simple in so allowing for freedom of movement from chord to chord and omitting the third for most chords, throwing it in for color especially if it's present or distinctive in the melody, and having your C major chord ready when playing in D mixolydian or piper tunes )
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
I believe woops is referring to a chord progression. Perhaps from a jazz genre.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I'd substitute a tonic for a beer, myself.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Modes!
I think the problem you are speaking of, reminds me of new age folk/ celtic groups you seem to be trying to make Irish tunes something they are not. Folks who should really write their own songs or tunes to do what they want with. If you play guitar for a tune, you are playing a simplified version of the tune which accents the rhythm that is implied in it's natural harmonic movement. You should not turn it into a jazz standard with gypsy counterpoint unless it is for a really good reason and the people you are playing with are fine with it. The best guitarists backing Irish Traditional music that I have heard (Michael O'Domnhaille) play 1 chord for 90% of a tune and maybe 2 or 3 at the most for the other %10 of the time. Substitutions seem to follow simple patterns that include droning the tonic note (usually a D when a piper is doing the same) in the presence of some other chord which creates a 7th or 9th with the root of the chord.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Emily, I'd love a shot of Jameson's. When I was younger my parents wouldn't let me have all of Llig's in between notes. We had 1 note! Two, 3 at best, on holidays.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"Jack, musical theory is conceptual, not factual.
Playing music there are numerous options. It is fun, unless we missed another rule.
Cheers!"
So why bother to even attempt to understand the science of sound known as "music"? The concept of modes and scales is based on the science of sound, all is an attempt to understand and define the phenomenon. The "rules" are based on the science regarding sound waves and frequencies etc., and weren't invented. The rules of science regarding sound existed eons before man developed enough to fart or even hear it. Again, sorry to spoil your fun.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Jameson's? I'll take a good single malt any day. Obviously Llig's had a few too many as he's vomiting over people playing "Csharpmajorsevenwithaflattenedfifth."
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Modes!
Random_Notes. I think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say. I've obviously expressed myself badly. My point was that Irish music can be ambiguous in it's modes. While the notes for many of the tunes are from the dorian mode, the Harmony (chords) seems to imply more of an aeolian mode. I was trying to say that you DON"T use chords like C#7b5. But you DO substitute an Emin with a Cmaj7. And in E dorian, there is no C natural. So, is it E Dorian, or E Aeolian with Accidentals? (And yes Llig, I know you hate that term, but I can't think of another at the moment)
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by woops
Re: Modes!
A couple of points of clarification:
1) Sometimes the reason the modes don't fit (as many have implied) is that many ITM tunes (and other trad tunes) are based on so called gapped scales. I don't see any reason to belabor this, but only remark that 5 note 6 note and 7 note scales (made by leaving out some of the notes of the usual scale) are often the source scales for tunes. That is both why modes don't work and why using your ears is a better solution than theoretical abstraction.
2) Sorry Phantom, we've long since stopped using the physics rules to define scales and modes. Let's not go around again on tunings (mean, just, 1/4 comma, etc.) There are plenty of theoretical constructs that step all over what we conventionally do in trad music (consider Indian scales).
3) It seems to me that the Emin/Cmaj7 thing most often may have occurred (or perhaps it is better to say first developed) in sessions when two accompanists played Emin and Cmaj chords at the same time or when one chord was played and the fourth note happened to be in the melody being played (like a C over an Emin chord). Either kind of thing will help to "set" the sound of the Cmaj7 (or similar chords) in the ears of folks as acceptable. It "ain't" a rule that chord tones are in the scale. In jazz for example one hears a Bb all the time in Cmajor blues.
4) Another reason Cmaj7 can work in Emin Dorian because the "other chord" is often a Dmaj chord which can imply the Cnat or even add it as a D7 (though I certainly wouldn't do that).
There, that ought to muddy the waters. Time to play music a bit I think...
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
A couple of snippets from the other thread (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/23035)
"but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music." - ceolachan.
"P.S. ~ There are no modes without ears, no moods without senses..." - ceolachan.
Modes are not theory, they are labels for things, usages, that occur repeatedly. Real theory, from physics, physiology and psychology, help explain why those collections of notes work together the way they do. And some historical research explains why they came to be regarded as useful rules for use in some sorts of music. And, I suppose, the stuff in Earl Cameron's first post shows why treating them as rules helps create interest for some people a lot of the time and not annoy most people too much of the time.
Anyone know of any real theory, or analysis of usage, for the in between notes ?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
cboody, sorry, you can't avoid the rules of physics regarding sound... unless you're God or something. Try again lol
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
You've got cloth ears if you think that intonation is merely physics.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Michael... sound is vibrations in the air and the way they interact with each other is what we perceive as music. The very fact that we play scales and use modes is directly related to physics. If you don't think so then maybe you should jump off a building and see if gravity isn't based on physics too.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Nah, its these creative types, steeped in aesthetics and their synthetical thoughts are a bit vague about science.
And they probably all use Macs.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Crossed. See.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
æsthetics. Ha
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
You could say everything this physics when it comes down to it, how your brain works etc. but it doesn't help.
The important point about music though is that while it may well be merely vibrating air molecules, the human organisation of these vibrating molecules is based on convention, not physics.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Arabic music uses tones that fall between notes of western modes. I once heard an Arabic fiddler talking about his experience studying western music in a US university. His professor asked him to play a tune from his culture, and after he did the professor said, "That was lovely, but there were so many out-of-tune notes." Then he played the same tune he had played for the professor and it was gorgeous.
The scales and modes are based on a different set of overtones than what western ears are used to hearing. I tried playing arabic music a while back and became frustrated by my inability to land on the notes that are a quarter tone away from western modes. But the difference between the modes used in Irish music and Arabic music aren't based on altered notes; they are actual scale degrees in Arabic music. This does perhaps explain why the alternate quarter tones sometimes used in Irish music have a desirable effect.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Michael, the sound our brain is interpreting is based in physics. The scales and modes are based in overtone series. There are infinite variations on this, but Irish music is based on a particular set of overtones. If that isn't true then what would stop you from writing tunes based on whole tone scales? The reason there are none is because Irish music isn't based on whole tone scales; it's based in modes, the most common being Major, Mixolydian, and Dorian.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
There are actually seven different modes.
The three modes mentioned by Earl are used a lot in ITM,
and all of the modes are used in jazz.world,pop.folk,country, etc.
Modes are like different flavours/colours that can enrich both the melody and chords and suddenly change the 'feel' of the tune.
To dismiss the knowledge of modes is quite ludicrous !
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by imogenus
Re: Modes!
in old deys we play de musik we love, ve are no vometing on hit,i think dis llig is useing vibrator,for rong reason,vomit on brain is better think i, the devil a care, with love.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Dodger
Re: Modes!
Well, there are a lot more modes than seven, including some that are used in ITM that haven't made the list, like gapped modes, including pentatonic and others.
But, have I missed something? Was someone in this thread "dismiss[ing] the knowledge of modes"?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
The precision of intonation is cultural, not scientific
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
A quarter of what ? Exactly a quarter ?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
deer earl, why yo blow such hot air,i also saw clockwork orange,i play irish reel, blow in dark, i know not key ,let a lone mode ,do you play the irish musik ,or maby the jazz .the devil a care.with love.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Dodger
Re: Modes!
"A quarter of what ? Exactly a quarter ?"
Exactly my point. Modal theory, for example, talks of major and minor thirds and how these are strict definitions, quantifiable, measurable, scientific. They are not. They are cultural
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Jack, why is it so important to cast the facts in stone & remove every bit of subjectivity?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
If you want to play music based on tunings different from what you are accustomed to loosen up. Music doesn't have to be conquered.
Cheers,
Ben
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Modes ~ Standing Stones excerpt:
"Nineteenth-century editions of traditional music frequently "corrected" tunes by adding sharpened leading tones, changing Dorian mode to Aeolian mode, etc. Hence, such sources should be regarded as suspect. Eighteenth-century collections appear to be fairly reliable; if the tune has lasted into modern times, it usually is fairly close to the eighteenth-century setting. Otherwise, a setting collected in the twentieth century is preferable."
http://www.standingstones.com/modeharm.html
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I completely agree with cboody's comment that "using your ears is a better solution than theoretical abstraction".
"I'd substitute a tonic for a beer, myself." If I didn't like beer better than tonic, I would drink to this. Maybe you could try a dominant or a sub-dominant instead of the tonic.
"I'd love a shot of Jameson's" I would drink to being shot by a bottle of Jameson's but I am on duty right now at the hospital while I am typing this.
Since I grew up in a musically literate home, our parents let us have all of the notes we wanted whether or not it was a holiday.
"I'll take a good single malt anyday" Am I still allowed to drink single malts although I am married now and am no longer single?
I agree with Llig's objections to a "C sharp major seven with a flattened fifth" being used in this music. That is going too far. This chord would work in jazz or ragtime (said the man who has played both) but I wouldn't try to use it in this type of music.
Phantom Button is correct when he reminds cboody that you can't avoid the rules of physics unless you are God or something else such as Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise or a surgeon at this hospital.
No, music doesn't have to conquered but does that mean you are supposed to let the music conquer you?
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by fauxcelt
Re: Modes!
i think i give hup playing de musik, en learn de modes and get clever,the devil a care. with love
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Dodger
Re: Modes!
"Jack, why is it so important to cast the facts in stone & remove every bit of subjectivity?"
Please show me where exactly you believe I did this. I have made no such effort or claim. You might want to review my comments and try leaving your bias behind this time. My comments are only acknowledging the facts regarding the physics of sound and how that's related to the modes used in Irish music. You and Michael seem to want to treat modes as something invented after the fact when the physics of sound have existed since the big bang or when God created everything depending on your perspective. Michael identified a quarter tone that is sometimes used in Irish music that occurs between scale tones of the mode, and I have no problem with that. But to throw the modes out simply because of an option makes no sense.
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
http://www.archive.org/stream/onsensationsofto00helmrich#page/365/mode/1up
Quite long time ago a very bright guy thought different. Last paragraph on that page
# Posted on November 9th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
ha, very good:
"Just as people with differently directed tastes can erect extremely different kinds of buildings with the same stones, so also the history of music shows us that the same properties of the human ear could serve as the foundation of very different musical systems. Consequently it seems to me that we cannot doubt, that not merely the composition of perfect musical works of art, but even the construction of our system of scales, keys, chords, in short of all that is usually comprehended in a treatise on Thorough Bass, is the work of artistic invention, and hence must be subject to the laws of artistic beauty."
Very concise and clear. I'm liking it. He goes on:
"In point of fact, mankind has been at work on the diatonic system for more that 2,500 years since the days of Terpander and Pythagorus, and in many cases we are still able to determine that the progressive changes made in the tonal system have been due to the most distinguished composers themselves, partly through their own independent inventions, and partly through the sanction they give to the inventions of others."
It's a shame that Mr Button lumps all the notes in the scales we play in with 5ths and 4ths. These intervals are of course mathematically pure in them selves and were for a while the only mainstay of church harmony. But the introduction of further subdivisions of the octave compromised the maths irrevocably.
Everything since then is either/and convention/invention.
If you still are having trouble with these facts, ask a piano tuner.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Are you still insisting on denying the existence of modes Mr. Gill? Please explain for us why most Irish tunes adhere to the modes mentioned and if not... why. I suppose you have your own system of scales and tones... please elucidate.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
It was asked above, "what's the symbol for a note about 30% sharp of E♮ and 70% flat of F♮? ... what's the symbol for the note halfway between C♮ and C♯?"
In some printed Irish tune books (Pete Cooper's is a recent one) an upward pointing arrow is used to show that the note is played sharp, about halfway to the next half-tone up.
A modern "classical" microtonal music score I once looked at used for a quater-tone sharp a # sign modified by leaving out one of the down-strokes. There was also a special sign for a flattened quarter-tone, but I don't recall it. With even more esoteric microtonal music (1/6 tones, as used by Alois Haba for example) the composer would very likely devise his own notation.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: Modes!
So Phantom Button's first contribution to this discussion is, "Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music ..." and now he is accused of being too tied up in rules? No wonder he feels like people are twisting what he says!
All this quartertone stuff reminds me of the late jazz trumpeter Don Ellis, who had a special trumpet made with a quartertone valve. His chromatic runs had twice as many notes as other people's--pretty wild.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
Exactly, Al, one of the things I least appreciate about the discussion forum here is the penchant of some of the contributers to do more posturing than discussing. They seem to need to be "right" rather than just discussing a topic. And even though their efforts to accomplish being "right" defies logic and reason, it matters not because the objective has more importance than the topic.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
In re:" cboody, sorry, you can't avoid the rules of physics regarding sound... unless you're God or something. Try again lol" Phantom: This is not the place to get into discussions of 17 note scales, Indian Ragas, 21 note scales, tempered scales, and a whole bunch of other things. Suffice it to say that physics has LOTS of solutions other than the 12 chromatic notes divided into eight tone western scales. And, even thinking of 12 tones what about octatonic scales? Blues scales? "gypsy scales?" or a bunch of others. Truly to say the 8 church modes were determined by physics and are the only ways to go is much more god like than anything I suggested.
I'm not lol. I'm sad for your lack of knowledge.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
llig: Modal theory, for example, talks of major and minor thirds and how these are strict definitions, quantifiable, measurable, scientific. They are not. They are cultural
That's the point. Yeah Phantom, there are physics reasons that can be found for most of the solutions for dividing the octave (arguably the only interval agreed upon in almost all musics). But the solution is not to return to physics. It is, as you have noted yourself, to use your ears and become familiar with whatever tradition. One of the really sad things to read in ethnomusicological stuff is the lengths scholars stretch to in order to fit trad music into some pre-defined set of musical rules (usually based on physics).
Maybe though we are talking past each other. I read your earlier remarks about physics and modes as implying that physics had somehow defined the church modes (only). That's what I'm objecting to.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
I rest my case, here's cboody is so bent on being "right" he hasn't even read my comments before drawing his baseless conclusions. I brought up Arabic music a while ago in this thread. I think if you have anything to be "sad" about it's your own lack of knowledge about what has been said in this thread before you opened your mouth and placed your foot squarely inside.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
So cboody, is it your position then that sound and the phenomenon of overtones has nothing to do with physics? Is it also your position that the modes discussed in this tread are related neither to physics or Irish music?
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
From cboody's profile: "much more knowledgeable about the technical ins and outs of music than many traditional players"
Ok, cboody, I see where you're coming from now; out to prove something. I'm more interested in having a discussion, so when you're done pounding your chest let me know.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Mr button has a habit of getting a little paranoid on these long threads and it makes his tone acusationary. Stuff like accusing someone of being interested only in being right, but prefacing the very same sentence with, "I rest my case".
It's pointless. All this: "I'm right." "No I'm right." "You said this." "But you said this" "No I didn't." "Yes you did." "No I didn't." "Yes you did." etc.
Stuff like: "Are you still insisting on denying the existence of modes Mr. Gill?"
I never said that, yes you did, no I didn't. For christ sake, enough already (as the yanks like to say).
I like the modal theory. It's interesting and I understand it. What I also try to understand is where its relevance to this music ends. Or rather, where the music goes beyond it. (de ja vu anyone?)
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by llig leahcim
Modes
I find modal theory an interesting read. The Standing Stone link is one I will likely post again in the future. I haven't thrown it away. They provide some basic guidelines. Some tunes follow a modal model very closely ~ others are not always so tame. Not to say that music theory is without an explanation (many in fact)
Cheers, Jack. Thanks for your contribution. ;)
You mates are grand.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Random_notes
*
"I haven't thrown it away." ~ Modal Theory
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Regarding the "rules": I majored in music and went through theory courses for years where I studied and played masterworks from various periods of western music. But all of that study in college didn't seem to matter when I began playing Irish music. I was studying piano and harpsichord in college, but my first instrument to attempt Irish music on was the concertina. I started out self-taught, but when I moved to San Francisco a few years later I had the opportunity to receive private lessons from Noel Hill in exchange for organizing some workshops. His first observation of my playing was that I made it sound like I was playing a piano keyboard... and he was right; I had basically transposed my understanding of music to the concertina and Irish music. I had realized before that experience that Irish music was using as primary modes ones that I had heard as alternates or unusual. But this is part of what attracted me to irish music in the fist place. What followed the experience with Noel was a matter of breaking rules I never thought possible. But here's my point: my understanding of the "rules" helped me to pinpoint where the rules of western music were being broken regarding irish music. As I said early on in this thread: a theoretical understanding of modes isn't necessary to play this music... but it helps.
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
i am old boxbc player irish musik , pleese tel me de RULES .the devil a care. with love
# Posted on November 10th 2009 by Dodger
Re: Modes!
No Mr. Button, I'm not interested in pounding my chest. If I had been I might have listed my credentials in my profile. I didn't because in many respects they are not important in ITM. I congratulate you that you majored in music. I spent a good number of years teaching college music majors.
There are lots of issues with regard to your mention of overtones, most important among them is the fact that conventional music theory has accepted equal temperament which is not really overtone based and traditional music, particularly from eastern Europe and further east, doesn't base upon the same overtones if it bases on them at all. ITM too is full of tunes that pull at the fabric of overtone theory. But I'm not interested in carrying out this discussion further, since it clearly isn't a discussion. Llig has already made the salient point:
I like the modal theory. It's interesting and I understand it. What I also try to understand is where its relevance to this music ends. Or rather, where the music goes beyond it.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
And you think you're telling me something new? BTW, your last sentence was my point exactly--the same point you challenged. I guess you learned something here after all. Great!
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
A lot of people with a standard education in western music (be it formerly educated or merely informally educated through the ubiquitous culture of it) are drawn to these diddley tunes because they sound exotic,
This is fine to begin with, but it's not accurate to identify things in them that "break" the rules of standard western harmony. It's perfectly natural, for example, if you have developed western ears, to wince at notes that, to you, sound out of tune, but it's vital that you realise that these "discrepancies" were not invented as rule breakers to a previously established system. They developed as a separate system and if they sound exotic it's merely because your ears developed in a different system. They are not exotic, of course, to ears developed within the traditional Irish harmonic system. The so called "sweetened" minor third is a good example (though sadly unavailable on a concertina)
To understand this music better, you have to develop your ears to a level where the tunes do not sound exotic. Identifying rule breakers to a strict modal theory based on physics gives one the impression that these particular tunes or parts of tunes are somehow special. But they are not. They actually sit comfortably with the rest of the music and until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be a be to play them comfortably.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
An emphatic "Yes!" to what Llig just said. And one more point. These tunes, even with all the "sweetened" notes, etc actually DON'T "break the rules" of modal theory. Not if you're using the right modal theory, as opposed to something akin to classical music theory. I believe there are places where you'd find writings on modal theory as applied to Irish music, if you really need it. Henebry is often cited, but I haven't read him. I'm happy with the tunes as they are.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
The modal theory was not based on physics, it was based on maths before the physics (and a lot else) was understood. Physics did not make the rules, musicians did. Those quotes from Helmholtz made by llig above follow page after page after page in which he applies his physics and physiology to various types of music (including the arabic scales). He comes to this conclusions *after* he has done the physics. The whole section on esthetics (search for that spelling) is a good read.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
They break the modal theory based on physics
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Crossed, but their you go. Much the same response from a musician (which we suspect ethical blend is) and a physicist (which I was, sort of).
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Sorry, they break the modal theory based on maths
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Crossed again I think. But just in case - No llig it is *not based on physics*
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Ha ha.OK.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
I took a Music Theory class in university. We covered the modes. The jazz musicians, NTSU, also referred to them.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Thanks for that, Michael. Again you've said exactly what I was thinking, and said it better than I would have.
"...until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be able to play them comfortably."
This applies to every aspect of the music, and it's wholly missing in people who learn this music from recordings and notation and theory, rather than immersion.
And it's rather pathetic for people to righteously thump their chests about their superior "understanding" of the music when their own experience of it is almost entirely based on recordings, notation, and theory.
# Posted on November 11th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
The "rules" of modal theory provide a road map, but as I said in my first contributions here, it's not necessary to play the music. What it DOES provide are markers to assist in understanding where the discrepancies are.
For all of you experts out there: If sound vibrating air isn't physics, what is it then?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
You miss the point. The "discrepancies" between the two systems are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Michael, your post above was one of the most useful perspective comments I have read here in a long time
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Donough
Re: Modes!
Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory. As for me, the study of those things has only helped me to understand why the discrepancies we are discussing in this thread exist.
That being said, I'm wondering if Michael feels that anyone who plays Irish music on a fixed pitch instrument, or plays in tune with those instruments, is considered to be playing it all wrong because they fail to realize and play the true scale he refers to that exists beyond the boundaries of a tempered scale and would otherwise sound out of tune in relation to a fixed pitch instrument.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Fixed pitch instruments don't have the inter-tonal range to play all the tones of this music, which simply means that such instruments are limited, not necessarily "all wrong." A concertina isn't expected to produce all the micro tones that are possible on a flute, eh? Yet the two can blend.
Jack, consider this: pitches can be defined in terms of their frequencies, but whether or not a form of music uses certain frequencies, and the musical significance and roles we assign to various frequencies, is wholly cultural. Musicians within different traditions use different frequencies, and the play different scales built on those choices.
Besides, as Oliver Sacks makes abundantly clear in Muscicophilia (echoed by Daniel Levitin in This is Your Brain on Music), neuroscience research consistently shows that our sense of pitch is highly subjective and subject to change, physics or no.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
P.S. Comparing playing music to knocking billiard balls around strikes me as a tragic misunderstanding of music, this music in particular.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
P.S. it's an analogy, Will, Google it.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
The Irish music we're playing was developed during periods where the tempered scale (based on physics) was accepted and employed in the instruments being produced and used. The music we enjoy that's known as Irish traditional music is using the modes discussed in these threads, again based in physics. The way sound is produced in the instruments we play it on, is yet again based in physics. The options that Michael pointed to are just that--options--and not requirements for playing this music. To claim that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish music is just plain silly.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Thanks to Llig (or do you prefer Michael??) and Lonelyhearts for saying better what I was trying to get across. All those nice mathematical models of scales just go out the window when you hear good trad players...in almost any tradition. How else can you explain the scale of the GHP??
BTW Button: if you must quote my profile I'd certainly appreciate that it not be taken out of context....
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
Ok mister "I know more about music than you guys do." lol
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
So cboody, I guess this means it's impossible to be a "good trad player" on a fixed pitch instrument... right?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Will writes: "Jack, consider this: pitches can be defined in terms of their frequencies, but whether or not a form of music uses certain frequencies, and the musical significance and roles we assign to various frequencies, is wholly cultural. Musicians within different traditions use different frequencies, and the play different scales built on those choices."
This was my point if you review my comments regarding Arabic music in this thread. It still doesn't dismiss the existence of physics and theory, not as a requirement, but rather an explanation.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
LOL Jack, if I recall correctly, I'm not the one who has difficulty recognizing an analogy (or have you forgotten the "akin" episode?).
Just that music/billiards is a particularly misleading, misguided analogy. Which is what I said above (note the word "Comparing").
So all this old stuff is based in physics, Jack? Would that be Copernican physics, or Newtonian physics, or quantum physics, or...?
Erm, and no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music. So please don't make it sound like anyone has.
What some of us here are saying is that strapping your understanding of this music solely to the tempered scale and classically adapted modes will lead you to view some tones and intervals as "discrepancies" rather than utterly bog standard tones and intervals. And if that's your sense of the music, then you're simply misunderstanding it. Which you're free to do, of course. But it doesn't justify calling the rest of us "silly."
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Will if you review this thread and my comments, my point from the beginning, in regard to the notes Michael was referring to, have been that an understanding of the modes isn't necessary for playing the music, but can assist in pin pointing where these discrepancies occur thus aiding in understanding why they might be there to begin with. I have also referred to these notes Michael pointed to as "options" since many well established instruments in traditional irish music can't play them The response has been to dismiss physics and theory as irrelevant. Please read the entire thread before you misrepresent me or the discussion.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I have read the whole thread Jack, so please don't insinuate that I haven't.
You're consistently missing the point. Those notes aren't discrepancies or options. And physics and music theory aren't the only arbiters of what makes a music. Our physiology and psychology (and hence culture) play a major, perhaps, predominant, role.
It's not as though disagreeing with you is disagreeing with Science with a capital S. Just your (rather narrow) view of it.
Besides, you completely bypassed an important point in my post above: "Erm, and no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music. So please don't make it sound like anyone has." Yet you then claim *I'm* the one not reading. Wake up.
From Dr. Brian Blood:
The standardization of pitch occupied much attention in the 19th century. The first suggestion for a standard had been made about 1700 by the French physicist Joseph Sauveur, who proposed C equals 256Hz, where Hz is one cycle per second, a convenient standard for mathematical purposes. The German physicist Johann Heinrich Scheibler made the first accurate determination of pitch corresponding to frequency and proposed the standard A equals 440Hz in 1834. In 1859 the French government decreed that the standard should be A equals 435Hz, based on the research of the French physicist Jules Antoine Lissajous. This standard was accepted in many parts of the world, including the United States, until well into the 20th century.
The association of the physical analysis of sound with the psychological aspects began as a serious study in the hands of Helmholtz. The human dimension affects our appreciation of tone, pitch and timbre and is something we need to appreciate to distinguish between mechanical data from physical instruments and what we actually hear or believe we hear. For example, Karl Ernst von Baer (1860), introduced a characteristic time constant, about 55 msecs, which he argued represented the time it took a human being to become conscious of a particular sensory impression. A good summary of this work and more besides is to be found in Music, Sound and Sensation by Fritz Winckel published by Dover, 1967, from which we have taken the following extract.
"These remarks should prove sufficient to show how in the human world principles of music aesthetics are determined by a physiological constant; the boundaries of the tone spectrum, the speed with which tones follow each other, the evaluation of the tone colour, the 'space' perception of sounds and the ability to determine the direction of the sound source."
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
"no one here has claimed that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish tradition music"
If you review the thread the discussion modulated to a few people dismissing modes as being relevant to traditional music, and there was also discussion about whether or not it relates to physics.
For example:
"The modal theory was not base on physics" - david_h
"They break the modal theory based on maths" - Michael Gill
"But just in case - No llig it is *not based on physics*" - david_h
But I haven't dismissed the variety of cultural interpretations of the phenomenon of sound waves exciting air molecules, and in fact I embrace them, but I'm not going to pretend that Irish music doesn't fall within the framework of modes. Sure there are options within that framework, but most of the tunes are following the "rules" of the theory basically. If you or anyone else thinks they aren't, then maybe you guys should avoid using terms like Major, Dorian, Mixolydian, etc., when referring to them.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I usually don't use key and mode labels. They're only necessary when entering abc into a conversion site. I see the modes as optional, and the tunes themselves as essential.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Mr Button, at the time of Terpander, Pythagorus, St Ambrose and Pope Gregory modal theory was couched in terms of mathematics because they were quite good at that and there was a direct relationship to the lengths of strings and such. But it was only when Helmholtz and his mates starting making resonating chambers and apparatus out of gutta percha, sealing wax and threads from the cocoon of the silk moth etc, and cutting up human ears and looking at them through microscopes, that they began to understand the physics and how it related to our perception of sound.
Physics is just out there
Music is just out there
No one is saying they are not related and it is a failure of logic to suggest those quotes to are saying that they are not related
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
And the tempered scale is based on maths and musical practice (dividing the octave into 12). Physics doesn't really come into it.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
To claim that physics and music theory have no relation to Irish music is just plain silly. Maybe so. However, it's certain that they have no relation to the art of playing it.
If a pool player gets out his protractor and measures the angles, calculates all the forces required (with all the measurements of the mass of the balls, the friction of the air and cloth etc. - and just imagine the complexities of side and back spin) is he going to make a better shot? Of course not. The game of pool may well follow the laws of physics, and those laws may well be interesting. But a pool player learns by practice and plays by intuition. To him, the laws of physics are irrelevant. He knows only too well that to study them would, at best, be a distraction to his game.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Ha Ha (last sentence).
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
But the tempered scale was developed from a phenomenon based on physics.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Michael, the comparison of the physics off pool balls colliding and sound waves exciting air molecules has nothing to do with the methodology of playing pool or music--you missed the point.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
*physics OF pool balls
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Which phenomenon ?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Sorry, it's your analogy. I'm not comparing the physics of music with the physics of pool. I'm comparing the relevance of physics in pool to the relevance of physics in traditional Irish music:
"Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory. As for me, the study of those things has only helped me to understand why the discrepancies we are discussing in this thread exist."
And I said earlier, the "discrepancies" between the two systems of standard western harmonic structure and tradition Irish harmonic structure are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance. And as to why they exist? That was answered earlier also. It's through cultural isolation and nothing to do with either physics or mathematics.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
"If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance"
That may work the other way when something exotic comes in from outside. Since I got the Eb key on the flute I have learned a few of those baroque influenced minor tunes with a leading note (Carolan & Scottish). On some recordings that note goes by without it being remarkable (presumably to my not completely trad ear), whilst on other it is emphasised in a "hey we have something cool and different here" sort of way. The latter is fun when playing with the Eb key.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Michael, you're getting lost in your own rhetoric. My comparison was between the physics of sound hitting air molecules and pool balls hitting each other--not playing pool with playing Irish music. The phenomenon of the physics of sound is what leads to music, and in the pool ball's case--knocking pool balls about on a table, but that's where the comparison ends... comprende?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
There's a note on the Irish pipes (they'll have a name for it) that is slightly sharp of Eb. Kind of like a sweet Eb. You get it by covering only the higher of the two holes at the bottom of the chanter that are used to get your D. Pipers use it a lot to slide up to the E in either octave. So in Irish music it's not like really playing an Eb, more of a way of sliding the pitch of the E down a bit, or getting to the E from just below it. Fiddle players do the same thing all the time. Difficult on a flute where the key is either up or down, easier to half hole the bottom hole instead. Can't be done on a concertina of course.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Also, if you don't think learning the modes assists you in understanding the way Irish music works--fine--but some of us might. I realize that in Michael's world being right means agreeing with whatever Michael says and being wrong is whatever Michael says is wrong... but that's your world and not mine. For me the understanding of modal theory is helpful; this doesn't mean I'm wrong or can't hear, play, or understand the music--it just means we have different perspectives.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I'm comparing the relevance of physics in pool to the relevance of physics in traditional Irish music
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Hint: they both involve physics. You're denial of physics in music is like a pool player denying physics in pool.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Straw man alert
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
I'm off to sleep... have fun Michael et al.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Since when has questioning something's relevance been a denial of it?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Jack wrote: "For me the understanding of modal theory is helpful; this doesn't mean I'm wrong or can't hear, play, or understand the music--it just means we have different perspectives."
Agreed. But this music cannot be fully understood based ***only*** on standard western scale/modal theory.
For generations, the gestalt of this music developed with little to no formal understanding or regard for standard western modal theory. It developed instead according to the ears of the folks who played it--not students of Greek (or any other) modes.
If Greek modes lead you to think of some notes as "discrepancies," then you're giving too much weight to the Greek modes. Irish music developed under a different set of musical premises.
The simplest way I can think of saying this is:
The sweetened minor third and other tones common to this music may sound (at worst) "off" or (at best) "beguilingly discordant" within the standard western system of scales and modes. But these same tones are neither "off" nor "beguiling" within the scales and modes of Irish music. They just are.
It's not easy to discuss the tones and intervals of Irish traditional music because we don't have handy labels for them. As yet, Irish music has lacked its Pythagorus (Tomas O'Cainnan comes close). But simply applying labels and frameworks (e.g., "dorian") from another culture may lead us to misunderstand the musical sensibilities that make this music unique and significantly different from other genres.
There's some cultural hubris at work when Western European modes are assumed to be the best tool for understanding Irish traditional music. A bit like presuming that French grammar would be the best lens for deciphering the Cree language.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Irish Music is played by humans. Here is what makes a human;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body
O.K., it's Wikipedia & this is a knee jerk reaction.
Just seems like the path of least resistance. Carry on ;)
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Yes, but it's the differences that make life interesting.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
"modes are optional, tunes are essential.'
~ works for me. some good contributions from Montana today.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Going back a bit (up the thread) ... what have the ancient Greeks got to do with anything? Totally different thing. Some of the same words (Lydian, Phrygian etc) - octaves and fiths considered similarly to later theorists - but completely different solution and completely different modes.
But who cares, anyway? It's still interesting, but not all that relevant when you're playing tunes. "Ooh, must remember that the next tune is in D mix." Don't think *that's* what happens - more like "bugger me, I/we seem to have gone into Tatter Jack Walsh again".
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Well, the Pythagoreans were among the first to document an understanding of dividing tones into intervals, and their sense of what sounded "good" was based on the ratios for certain intervals.
My point is exactly that the Pythagorean system and subsequent systems of intervals adopted by Europeans and refined into Baroque and Classical music doesn't necessarily match--and so may be only somewhat relevant to the tones and intervals of Irish traditional music.
And it has nothing to do with playing the tunes well.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Didn't the diatonic scale start with the ancient Greeks ?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Hmm. I think that what goes in my head when learning to play by ear has more to do with scales, or sets of notes, and the way tunes work with them than with building up a repertoire of familiar patterns as suggested, for example, as part of the 'anti scales and arpeggios' debate. Somehow the model of the jazz musician running over the scale he is going to improvise over seems more relavant than what sounds very close to the idea of building up a set of familiar 'riffs' that raised hackles here recently.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
For me, neither mode nor riffs are very relevant when playing this music. What's relevant are the tunes.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
If it's not broke . . .
the thread is 1 week old today. I have read [thanks google] more theory , in the past week, than I have in the past several years. if it helps my playing I'll let you know. I agree with Will, about hearing discrepancies, "Irish music developed under a different set of musical premises."
I was getting at a similar point with the Standing Stones link. Transcribers, upon not hearing the relative minor they expected, altered the melody. That's one way theory can be used. Or misused.
Question: if the modes are used for a genre why only 3? Ionian, Dorian, & Mixolydian. Would Aeolian be accepted? Are the additional modes anomalies ~ according to the theoretical premise?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Will writes: "Agreed. But this music cannot be fully understood based ***only*** on standard western scale/modal theory."
Where did I say or imply this? Maybe you guys should get away from your computers for a while and take a break. I don't get how I can make a simple observation and you guys can come in and obsess over it until you've invented something to criticize me for or challenge me on. For example, when I say "helpful" it doesn't mean "only."
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
My answer: the modes weren't "used" for this music, they were applied to it after the fact. There are a few tunes that would be classified as Aeolian for the purposes of entering them into the tune database here. But the folk process that tumbled these tunes around for generations didn't likely start out with a mode in mind when stringing the first notes together.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Jack, you are right.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Also, there are many tunes in this tradition with too few notes to determine what mode they fit best under. Play Castle Kelly without any Fnats or Fsharps. The tune works fine without either. It also works well with both (commonly played with a low Fsharp in the A part and a high Fnat in the B part). That "ambiguity," while part of the music's charm when compared to other genres, isn't ambiguous at all within the music itself. Ultimately, with such tunes, which mode you call it is arbitrary.
Never mind all the tones common in this music that don't correlate to the diatonic scale....
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I think, Miss Lonelyhearts - and pardon my inarticulacy - that we're agreeing. At least, I think I was trying to say what I think you said.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Michael writes: "Since when has questioning something's relevance been a denial of it?"
Go back and review your comments, Michael; you were rejecting it outright saying it has nothing to do with it. However you want to interpret the physics of sound waves vibrating air molecules depends on your interpretation, but it's still sound waves vibrating air molecules. It just so happens that the most relevant theory related to Irish music happens to be what this thread started out being about. You would have to invent your own system if you want it to match your particular take on it, but you'd have to start ruling out more instruments than bodhrans, and you might end up in a very lonely session after you exclude what instruments are capable of playing the intervals you're insisting on from the ones that can't.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Gosh! My post above was in answer to one of ML's some way up now. How did *that* happen?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Apologies for any inference of what may or may not have been implied. Jack, you did post this bit "Michael, there is no symbol for a pitch that falls outside of the modes as they have been identified unless you endeavor to invent one. You can only understand where they are by knowing what the scale degrees are and why those notes fall outside of it, hence, where the rules are broken."
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I don't see where anyone suggested that Modal theory was "used" or practiced in the development of Irish music, I don't think they sat down and said, "Ok, lads, now remember, we must compose this music based on modal theory," but it IS the best explanation for the basic structure. It is precisely that fact that underlines the point that "rules" of modal theory were "broken" and understanding where and why those rules were broken is helpful in gaining a better understanding of what makes Irish music unique.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
When did Michael imply he wishes to develop a system of musical theory? No offense, PB. computer off . . . now
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Good heavens, yes random, its the same discussion that has llig's "routes and roots". I'm still happy with the comment by ceolachan that I lifted from the other thread "they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music".
I wonder if those Greek names indicate geographical patterns.
What do you call a D major tune that has you reaching for a low C# ? - English
What do you call a D major tune that has you reaching for a low Cnat ? - Scottish
Why don't the irish just play them in G major then ? - why stop at F if you can go all the way down to D.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Jack, your constant habit of ascribing ulterior motives to me and others is really petty and tiresome.
I'm trying to raise the possibility that hanging on modes may actually hinder someone's understanding of this music. If you don't want to consider that possibility, by all means cling to your opinions. But your doing so doesn't make me "silly" or "in denial" or "obsessed" or even critical of you. Just because I think you miss the point doesn't mean I'm challenging *you* on it. I'm assuming other people read these threads. Random here has suggested he might have even learned something from the back and forth.
So:
Are modes helpful in this music? Perhaps. But if anyone thinks that common tones in this music are "discrepancies," then they're putting too much weight on the modes in place of the conventions of *this* music.
Flip it. A player completely immersed in Irish traditional music in the early 1800s might think it odd that the formal Western music of his day lacked so many notes that were familiar to him. To him, the Western system would be full of "discrepancies."
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I was responding to a different comment than yours, Random, but I think that should explain that the rules that were "broken" weren't broken intentionally because they weren't intentionally composing the music to conform with the theory. The theory just explains what basically makes Irish music tick, and understanding where the theory is left behind, or the "rules" are "broken" lends a hand in understanding... for me anyway.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
"Jack, your constant habit of ascribing ulterior motives to me and others is really petty and tiresome."
And likewise your assigning to me points I never made and then criticizing me is equally tiresome. I have an idea, from now on why not express your opinions without inferring it has anything to do with what I said. You can start by eliminating my name from your posts and or misquoting me and misrepresenting any points I did or didn't make.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I reckon I can shorten it: It don't break no rules; played right, it just sounds good.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
How can a person break "rules" that aren't part of his approach to making music? Sorry that just doesn't make sense to me.
Applying the diatonic scale and standard modes after the fact to music that evolved with no consideration of them can be seriously misleading. All I'm saying is that there are better frames of reference for understanding this music. Like the tunes themselves and the early instruments they were created on.
FWIW, how we interpret sound has *much* more to do with our brains and neural pathways than air molecules bouncing around. Research continues to reveal how subjective and relative our aural senses are.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
if you don't begin with the theory why would you have to leave it behind? O.K. I'm still logged on.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I give up. I can't keep up with the ping pong. ML, FWIW, I agree with you. I'm out of here.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
And as I indicated from the beginning, understanding where and why Irish music strays from it's nearest explanation is helpful in understanding the subtleties of Irish music... to...
wait for it...
me... it's helpful to me
(The next post will no doubt say: "Anyone who uses modal theory to understand the subtleties of Irish music is getting it all wrong and depending on recordings and sheet music instead of sitting at the feet of the masters in Irish music holy places like Ireland or Montana.")
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
That would be unfair at this point in time Phantom.
Cheers,
Ben
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"if you don't begin with the theory why would you have to leave it behind?"
Random, I find it interesting that the notion of studying the closest related theory and locating the places where it's different would be a process you think would be useless in the pursuit of understanding something. Please elucidate.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Miss L, so might you make a case against all analysis in favour of just immersion in 'the tunes' ?
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
The early consonant intervals were considered consonant
(as we now know) because the sound waves played together produce the fewest number of beats per second. The 5th, 4th, 6th, and 3rd. By this definition, within an octave, the farther two notes are apart, the more consonant they are. so from the first note the 5th is the farthest away (without getting closer to the first pitch repeated in the octave) and the most consonant, the original consonant tone. The 4th can be considered an inversion of the 5th, as it is an equal distance away from the first tone repeated in the octave.
The most dissonant interval is a semitone, or arguably the flattened 5th. I'm sure the sound waves could be analyzed to calculate the beats per second.
The discrepancy here is that notes sound different in context. There are always issues of tone and acoustics that influence the musician to play certain intervals flat or sharp. Fiddle players play more perfect 5ths than say harp players or dulcimer players, because we habitually tune until our 5th intervals produce the fewest beats per second ( or you could say until they sound good, you say tomato I say tomato).
I would definitely say there is latitude of how flat or sharp a note might be played based on how those notes are "moving" in the context of music (but does this really apply to anyone outside of fiddle players) ? That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be considered to be a different note. Surely Miss Lonely Hearts must be talking primarily about Pipe and Fiddle players. But do you suggest the harp too was not tuned to some evenly tempered scale, or if it was, it had more than 12 tones per octave? How was the ancient harp different from the modern harp tuned with the 7 diatonic tones which can be tuned flat or sharp a semitone to play all possible key signatures.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
" I'm sure the sound waves could be analyzed to calculate the beats per second. "
http://www.archive.org/stream/onsensationsofto00helmrich#page/193/mode/1up
Sorry, couldn't resist it, I just love that drawing.
# Posted on November 12th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
I suppose Miss Lonelyhearts might be talkng "primarily" about pipes, flute, whistle and fiddle. But ... um ... what more do you need?
Ah! I know! More flutes!
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes! my most boring post ever
beg pardon, it's my poor grammar. I wrote *you* which implies *not me*. When *I* listen to a tune my rational brain shifts to the back burner. Some refer to this as a left brain/ right brain shift. If I begin learning a tune by trying to understand the best fit (in a theoretical model) the tune gets subdivided into those elements which work vs the discrepancies. Later on, my rational brain might want to form a theory which explains those discrepancies (nuances? nyah?) Rather than that, I do this ~
My brain *begins* empty of rational thought (your point about leaving something behind?) . . . my brain is empty except for the tune coming through my ears. This is where I begin, or at least try to begin. I consider this the primary place for learning any tune. Works for me with Irish tunes & my guess is it may help if I wanted to learn tunes from a different genre.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
The trouble I have is that I can only listen to a tune I am learning so many times, say when driving so I can't pick up a whistle, before I start doing things like trying work out what the notes are. I am not very good at it. How do people with well trained ears mange not to do that ? And is it so wrong ?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
In fewer words
To understand something, I study. To play with my mates, I don't need a reason.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"I find it interesting that the notion of studying the closest related theory and locating the places where it's different would be a process you think would be useless in the pursuit of understanding something. Please elucidate."
I find it interesting that you ask the question of Random ... after I've already succinctly elucidated further up ... twice at least:
"And I said earlier, the "discrepancies" between the two systems of standard western harmonic structure and tradition Irish harmonic structure are not important within themselves, There is no reason to identify them. If you make a point of identifying them you give them a special status that skews their importance. And as to why they exist? That was answered earlier also. It's through cultural isolation and nothing to do with either physics or mathematics."
I'm sure it's possible now for me to continue this "discussion" and answer questions perfectly adequately by only quoting from the above. There being nothing else to add.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
succinct doesn't play well after 200 . . .
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Show of hands
who has read every word above?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
So Random, when you play the tunes are you intentionally or consciously playing notes that fall between the scale notes of the modes discussed in this thread?
As for my process, I usually am aware when a tune is sticking to a pentatonic scale and when other notes in a diatonic scale come into play. I also know when notes are altered. This helps me remember tunes as well. I'm rarely playing notes that fall between the scale notes and most of the excellent players I've had the privilege to be around and play with are basically doing the same thing. It's a rare thing when I see a musician actually employ the notes Michael refers to in this thread, usually they are masters if they can actually reproduce these notes accurately and intentionally, so it would be of great interest to meet him and hear him employee these precise subtleties to the music and see what it all sounds like according to his expertise.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
"How do people with well trained ears manage not to do that?"
"It's not only possible, but even desirable, to get 100% (not just 95%) by listening to the tune without even thinking of trying to play it. My dad does it, he understands the music very deeply and he's never played a note.
However, once you've got that 100% firmly in your noggin and then pic up the instrument, you can start down the road of 110%."
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
I stopped reading this thread weeks ago!!
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Then why are you here? NCFA
I make no claim to be a player at your level, Phantom nor Llig's nor Miss LonelyHearts. Your question seems to be directed at a particular *discrepancy* mentioned above. There are additional nuances, which my ears pick up (though I may lack the skill to play as well), that I do not 1st turn to models (perhaps later to rationalize). I trust my ears, shouldn't we learn this as the starting point?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"There's a note on the Irish pipes (they'll have a name for it) that is slightly sharp of Eb. Kind of like a sweet Eb. You get it by covering only the higher of the two holes at the bottom of the chanter that are used to get your D. Pipers use it a lot to slide up to the E in either octave. So in Irish music it's not like really playing an Eb, more of a way of sliding the pitch of the E down a bit, or getting to the E from just below it. Fiddle players do the same thing all the time. Difficult on a flute where the key is either up or down, easier to half hole the bottom hole instead. Can't be done on a concertina of course."
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Sincerest apologies if I am being persumptive.
Jack, are you tripping? I me more than the rest of us.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I cannot play it on flute.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
ghost D, I think
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
"Pipe jigs"
Posted on May 31st 2003 by Dow
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/1744/comments
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Why am I here?
Because I looked in the recent comments tab and saw:
Show of hands
who has read every word above?
I am interested in modal theory. I do think it is valid using modal theory to describe this music. Just because many or most of the composers do/did not consciously understand the modal theory it does not mean that those modes are not relevant. Likewise however there is probably no real need for most folk to worry about modal theory. It can just sit in the background.
Having said that I am just guessing at how this thread has developed and what the arguments have been. I repeat that I have not read anything on this thread since my previous posts towards the top and given the length of the thread I am not about to start now.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: Modes!
Then you shall remain in a state of ignorant bliss. Hmmm ~ that could be a new screen name.
I particularly liked the last comment in the thread linked above. It is part of what has me keeping an ear out for the likes of Liam O'Flynn.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
My starting point is at the same place my current understanding is; I'm not about to disregard it when considering Irish music or anything else. I don't buy the notion that you have to disregard it in order to understand this music. I have yet to see any peers attain a profound understanding and ability by disregarding what they already know. I do hear people playing out of tune sometimes, and perhaps advocates of the approach Michael subscribes to might argue it sounds out of tune to me on account of my incorrect methodology in learning it, but I would rather rely on my inherent sense of music to determine that for myself. Perhaps I'll go through this journey hearing the people who are playing it right sounding out of tune, but I guess that's my fate if I don't listen to the ITM gurus in this forum.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Liam O'Flynn is one of my faves, and he would be the sort of master I heard employ the subtleties referred to in this thread, so maybe I'm hearing it correctly despite my methodological shortcomings.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
No gurus here
Fair play! ;)
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"I would rather rely on my inherent sense of music"
"The important point about music though is that while it may well be merely vibrating air molecules, the human organisation of these vibrating molecules is based on convention. The precision of intonation is cultural."
"To understand this music better, you have to develop your ears to a level where the tunes do not sound exotic. Until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be a be able to play them comfortably."
There is no such thing as an inherent sense of music. It is all learned. It is all cultural. All of it.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
No physics, no theory, no inherent sense of music... mmmhmmm Michael... everything you mentioned contributes to one's inherent sense of music. Still can't wait to hear you play all the subtleties you illuminate on... should be amazing... or will it sound out of tune to me ya think?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I've never encountered a tune that didn't conform to one or more keys on the circle of fifths. The music I listen to must not be Irish.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
I think the use of the word 'rules' in this context, and of 'discrepancies,' is unfortunate, as it implies that something that doesn't fit the 'rules' is 'wrong.' But there are so many tunes that flirt with one mode or another, or have unique structures, and there is nothing 'wrong' with these tunes. They hew to different 'framework' that is not right or wrong. In fact, if we didn't think they were more right than wrong, I doubt this music in particular would have appealed to us.
I doubt anyone composing a tune thinks about the mode in advance, it is more something that helps us examine the tunes after the fact, than build them in the first place.
I think that Miss Lonelyheart's analogy about Cree and French languages to be a bit too much--Irish music is distinctive, but it is still very much part of the Western European musical tradition. Perhaps not the classical musical tradition of the academic community, but certainly part of the folk tradition, and despite its differences, with much in common with the musics of surrounding countries. So instead of as different as Cree and French, perhaps as different as Spanish and French.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
Perhaps Miss Lonelyheart's point was to neither compare nor contrast one with the other. Merely accept what you enjoy for it's own sake.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Earl, listen to various uilleann pipers playing variations of the tunes. There is something I can only refer to as modulation. Maybe it conforms to 1 (or more) keys (modes) (?) in the merry go round of 5ths. Good thread mate!
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I composed a tune recently.... discovered it was a minor tune in G after I finished it.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
"With Western art music, there are distinct differences between modulation, key/mode change and accidental. Not so with this music, the lines between these three are blurred and should remain open."
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Llig. Ta for the post up there related to my question. Setting aside the analysis bit I think there is an off-topic "top down" versus "bottom up" issue.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
"There is no such thing as an inherent sense of music. It is all learned. It is all cultural. All of it." - Llig
We could equally say "... no such thing as an inherent sense of visual art ...". In that case it is easier to explain that there is an inherent sense of light and colour resulting from physics and physiology. The art is what we do with it. Chemists do fancy stuff making up new pigments and surface textures but no-one says art is about chemistry.
Same with sound. The physics belongs with the sounds (and so also the instruments) and not with the music that is made with them.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
That's interesting David, I've not thought of it in that way. Though I think there is a slight difference in representative art (as opposed to conceptual art) and the way music is essentially abstract. Though the similarities of the conventions of the way we learn to draw and the conventions of the way we learn intonation are pertinent.
Kids don't draw what they see, they draw outlines. It's a very rare child indeed that can realise early on that objects they actually see do not have black lines around them. The black line thing is mere convention, and the desire to conform to convention is strong.
Intonation has a complex cultural history, but "correctness" is basically down to our immediate environment. My six year old's intonation is getting better, but it would get better a whole lot quicker if her mum would stop singing to her.
Interesting analogy with art, that occurred to me while I was writing this:
I remember an epiphany when I was learning to draw, when I first realised that objects didn't have black lines around them - it wasn't "early on". I realised that to represent the world in distinctive shapes that butted against each other, the boundaries being made by changes in light and/or colour, was much more satisfying. And that the study of the shape and contents of these shapes and their relation to each other made for not only a much better drawing, but also a much better understanding of what I was looking at.
So the analogy with music is to hear the shape and colour of notes and how they relate to each other. Listen for the change of note not as merely a black line (or dot of course) but as a subtle changing of tone and/or colour and/or pitch. With attack being the level of contrast between tone and/or colour and/or pitch.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Actually, that's not quite right Attack could be analogous to a black line between the notes.
So a piece of banjo playing would more or less be a straight forward line drawing (the lines should be different thickness of course) where the shapes are coloured in in flat colour.
A concertina piece would be a line drawing where all the lines are the same thickness and the shapes are all flat colour. If volume is analogous to shade, then the shading of the colour in each shape should be changing, but if colour is pitch, then the colour can't change.
The picture for pipes would be great, but a little flat, there being little dynamics. But being able to change the colour within the shapes is crucial.
Flute and fiddle music can give you the most varied pictures of course. But, I hasten to add before you bloody lot accuse me of being elitist, not necessarily the best.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
"That's interesting David, I've not thought of it in that way." Neither had I - its Helmholtz again (I think , been reading some later stuff as well).
If I remember correctly he uses something that can be translated as 'tone colour' for the characteristics of musical tones that are inherent, from the physics, physiology and some psychology. Drawing the analogy from colour in vision. But I may not have that quite right, it may just be how it has left me thinking of it.
He has a comment about a particular style of percussion that you will like, but I can't remember the adjective to search on. I though it was "detestable" but that just pulls up a comment related to vibrato.
I wonder about the black line and boundaries thing. Images are 'encoded' in our heads (and part processed in our retinas) in odd ways but its some time since I was into writings for the layman on that. Someone (Levetine I think) says something about how music may be 'encoded'.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
"Flute and fiddle music can give you the most varied pictures of course."
Flute being the best. Of course.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Crossed with llig. Attack on some instruments, especially plucked strings, is enharmonic, not a musical tone with its normal harmonics. As is percussion. (Helmholtz again). And a banjo pluck is particulary percussive because the head has vibrational properties similar to a drum.
But the little twists and turns put in by articulation techniques are mainly proper little musical notes, with their harmonics, not, apart from plucked strings maybe, really percussive.That, by the way, is why I think your description of the music as 'percussive' without need for percussion instruments is not right - its the wrong word.
I don't think all the analogies are needed, many of those characteristics are there in the waveform, in the physics. Playing a tune along with a recording while watching some of the graphic representations provided by Audacity (pitch, spectrum) is a curious experience. Ultimately unhelpful I suspect, but closer to the sound than the dots.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Ooh, odd use of the word "enharmonic" there. It means things like B flat and A sharp, and is only of use once you accept equal temperament.
At least, that's the only meaning I know of for the word ... what did you mean by it, David?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
... B flat being equal to A sharp, and therefore "enharmonic" with it, that is ...
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
So why is it that Irish music is based on modes? Sure they didn't sit down with the idea of doing so... but it is. It's closer to modal theory than anything else. There is no other system that comes close. If you disagree than please point to a theory that better explains it.
So why is that? I would say it must have to do with the cultural environment. But even with that being established... what is it that makes sound harmonious and pleasant sounding? It's the physics of sound; the way vibrating air molecules interact. Regardless of what genre of music you're playing the thing they all have in common is the sonority that provides a pleasant sensation... or that inherent musical sense that hearing humans have that allows us to enjoy pleasant harmonies and tones--that's where the different interpretations overlap. Even though there are different interpretations of the phenonemon... they are still subject to the basic physical realities of sound, and that part remains consistent through all the variations.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Rats, wrong word. I'll be back
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Inharmonic (well it was almost right).
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Now ... that's a new word on me. I'll have to go away in turn and look that one up ...
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
... been ... checked ... none the wiser ...
... but I think I see what you mean. Attack is 'unpitched', maybe? Mind you, i haven;t thought of this. I'd be interested to know if it in fact is unpitched ...?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
Irish music is, "closer to modal theory than anything else. There is no other system that comes close. If you disagree than please point to a theory that better explains it."
I've never disagreed that any other system/theory comes closer to describing the music than the modal system/theory. All I've ever said is that it's not sufficient. And that the act of comparing and describing the music in modal terms, even including caveats where it diverges, is at best, distracting.
You can just take it for what it is. I think that there is no need for any theory. However, if you feel you must have one, how about this:
The music is chaotic. Not in the usual sense of the word that implies a degree of randomness, but in the strict scientific sense of the theory where a system is deemed chaotic if any attempt to model it successfully results in a model as complex as the system itself.
And the music, of course, shares a characteristic common to most chaotic systems in that just one small change to any of the input data can have a dramatic effect on the outcome.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
The upper partials, or whatever you want to call them, the higher frequencies that are not the fundamental, don't have a harmonic relationship with the fundamental that a 'proper' muscial note has. They are not drawn from frequencies at some or all of 2 times, 3 times, 4 times etc. the fundamental.
They need not be unpitched because the fundamental may have a definite pitch. But the normal musical relationships that rely on the harmonics (i.e. almost all of them) don't work.
Bodhrans, clinky bones, clunky bones, tinkly spoons, cloppy spoons. Plunky banjos - to an extent. Strummed strings with a lot of plectrum noise maybe.
But not cuts, taps, hammer-ons, pull-offs.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
That was to ethical re: inharmonic.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Years ago now, I was interested in synthesisers and things. And I remember creating a sound with a lovely old analogue synth. A sound that had no real correlation to any real acoustic musical instrument. A warm sound, but none the less very unreal. But I did this thing with it that suddenly made it sound like something real, it was an extraordinary sensation. I sampled a simple knock on a table with my knuckles and attached that sound to the front end of my analogue sound. And suddenly the whole sound became real just because of that small and unpitched attack to each note.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
A lot of cuts, taps and other articulations in Irish fiddle music are unpitched. You can do a thing where you just flick the string momentarily without making contact with the fingerboard. You just interrupt the vibration for a small amount of time. It's an unpitched percussive thing. Crunchy triplet things are the same. And one of the things that classical players find difficult to do because they have spent so long learning how to change direction smoothly is to put a bit of unpitched crunch in your change of bow direction.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Thank you David. Now I *do* get what you mean, whilst simultaneously realising that I didn't previously ...
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
despite your best efforts each of these analogies indicate you are leaning toward developing a theory. I understand this is a process from the left side of the brain.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Lol... Michael Gill - musical anarchist.
Thanks for the attempt, Michael, but I still think the modal theory is the best tool for understanding Irish music structure. As I said at the beginning--it has helped me. If it seems to hinder your progress or understanding, then I can see why you choose to exclude it... but that's just you and whomever else it happens to encumber. In other words; you can dismiss it for yourself, but not for everyone else.
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
"...musical anarchist"
Nope, Michael's the musical anti-christ.
Hmmm. I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else." It's not about telling people what they can or can't do, or what they should or shouldn't do. It's more about exploring the pros and cons of an approach to understanding this music.
As has been repeatedly said above, if the yardstick you're using leads you to think that the object you're measuring is "off," it could be that the object really is off. Or it might just be that the yardstick doesn't have all the needed tick marks to measure the object for what the object really is. In other words, it's the yardstick that's "off."
Cut a piece of wood to exactly one meter in length, measure it in inches, and it will seem like an odd length--39.3700787 inches. Why not round off to 39 inches? What's one-third of an inch? But measure it in centimeters or millimeters, and the length makes perfect sense, eh?
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
See? And y'all thought he was a Trad Fascist.
"I told you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week…"
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Modes!
I'd rather be the court jester....
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Just for fun, but actually to relieve some boredom, I went back to the 1st post from each in the circle of 3.
Understanding the modes isn't essential to play the music of course, but it is handy to know if you want to be a competent backer. The only time the discussion has ever come up for me was usually in relation to finding the most supportive chord and understanding why backing a dorian tune is different than backing a minor tune, and how mixolydian is different than major.
November 5th 2009 by Phantom Button
Extrapolating part of the music and shoehorning into a foreign system will not help you understand it.
November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Thanks for that, Michael. Again you've said exactly what I was thinking, and said it better than I would have.
"...until you can hear them comfortably, without prejudice, you will never be able to play them comfortably."
This applies to every aspect of the music, and it's wholly missing in people who learn this music from recordings and notation and theory, rather than immersion.
And it's rather pathetic for people to righteously thump their chests about their superior "understanding" of the music when their own experience of it is almost entirely based on recordings, notation, and theory.
November 11th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
# Posted on November 13th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I really don't think that the modes fall short. The discussion about "sweetened" tones does nothing to change my mind. Also I do not agree that Modulation, and accidentals have a blurry line in ITM. Just because musicians tend to improvise, I have not found it to change the key of the tune. At least, it is not any more blurry than say classical music. Classical music is usually only harmonically evaluated after the fact, much the same as ITM. There are a lot of right ways to name the chords in a Bach Chorale for instance. All of which could take into account all non harmonic tones and accidentals, which tend to follow certain patterns in both cases.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Earl, in the beginning you included Aeolian in your explanation of the modes in Irish traditional music. Could you be so kind as to provide some examples of which tunes & which players use this particular mode.
Cheers,
Ben
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Random_notes
I notice you have several Paddy Fahey compositions in your tunebook. I like that!
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I think it was Schubert who really invented the best of what modulation is in his piano sonatas. He uses extraordinarily beautiful subtle additions of accidentals to gradually shift the tonal centre. Modulation is an incrementally specific and deliberately gentle movement of the tonal centre.
As opposed to key change which is merely a straight forward and instantaneous change of the tonal centre. (It's an important distinction.)
And straight forward mode change which makes use of, for example, keeping the tonal centre of D, but floating between your C and C sharp ... your major and minor third. A common thing in diddley music.
But I was tinkering with Garret Barry's jig today at work (with a muted tin whistle) and found that it neither modulates or specifically changes key or mode. It's such a terrifically enigmatic tune that certainly defies modal categorisation. The interchangeability of these runs:
XXXXXX, OOOOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXOOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXXOOO, XOOOOO, XXXXXX,
really is at the heart of it.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Sorry, I got those charts wrong, I meant the interchangeability of these runs:
XXXXXX, OOOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXXOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Will writes: "I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else." It's not about telling people what they can or can't do, or what they should or shouldn't do."
~~~
"Oh, all well and good, but completely irrelevant to Irish trad." [~~~] "But trad ain't organised that way, and trad musicians don't think like that. So, my strong advice to anyone who wants to understand trad would be to ignore any system such as Earl has made. It will lead you astray." - ethical blend
"Extrapolating part of the music and shoehorning into a foreign system will not help you understand it." - Michael Gill
"I particularly didn't like Phantom Button's remark on the other thread where he said that knowledge of the modes was useful when determining whether a note breaks the rules." - Michael Gill
"Sorry Phantom, we've long since stopped using the physics rules to define scales and modes." - cboody
~~~
Some strong statements that set the tone of this thread. The message is clear: if YOU try to relate modal theory to Irish music, or physics to sound--YOU'RE wrong. Michael even pinpoints his target as, "YOU."
In my statements I tried to qualify it as something I do or that helps me; I don't condemn the understanding or approach outright. As for discussing people's different opinions on topics--I love that--I learn a lot when that happens. It's just the condescending and pedantic tone that drags these discussions down IMHO.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Agreed, Jack. But rather than returning fire in kind, but why not just hold to the high road instead of telling people they're "in denial" or some other derisive put down. If you want to reduce the condescension, consider what you bring to the dialogue.
And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button. Based on my reading of Daniel Levitin, Oliver Sacks, and other neuroscientists, I happen to disagree directly with your understanding of the place of physics in how pitch and intervals are perceived and used by musicians, so I can disagree with you, personally. But I'd hope we can be civil about that.
Finally, I've believed things that I thought were helping me that I later realized were a hinderance. Thanks to others for pointing out more constructive ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's hard to suspend one's own beliefs, even to just briefly consider other alternatives. And sometimes your posts here strike me as defensive and unwilling to genuinely consider other points of view. Maybe I'm just misreading you, but that's how it *sometimes* comes across.
Anyway, this has been a decent discussion. I've certainly learned something from Michael and cboody's posts, in particular.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Humours of Whiskey - Slip Jig - E Aeolian
Tam Lin - Reel - D Aeolian
Coleraine - Jig - A Melodic Minor
Strayaway Child - Jig - E Aeolian
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Yes tunes in this mode are extremely rare. It is much more common in contemporary tunes such as Kate O'Brien's Larmor Plage in Gm (Aeolian). Traditional tunes that use the Aeolian mode tend to have few of whatever note makes them Aeolian, using it only as a passing tone. Tunes in E Aeolian usually only use a c for a passing tone or decoratively and/ or off the beat .
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Those Paddy Fahey's are in my tunebook so I can find them on the site. this way each one is definitely a distinctive entry, any other way and I get lost
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Will, don't think for a second that I'm interested in any lectures from you on how to conduct myself in here; you're hardly one to speak, and your own history of conduct here doesn't indicate your own experience is in any way exemplary. If Jeremy has anything to say to me then he can contact me himself; you are NOT his representative, nor are you a spokesmodel for this website.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Well, keep on keeping on then. Cheers.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes! But somewhat off topic.
Miss Lonleyhearts says : Anyway, this has been a decent discussion. I've certainly learned something from Michael and cboody's posts, in particular.
Thanks for these kinds words. And I have learned much from Miss Lonleyhearts! It is a treat to read comments substanciated by quotation from scholarly sources.
And I've learned a great deal from Michael and others too. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and articulate comments. While we may disagree from time to time the perspectives you bring are useful and enlightening to me. Now if it would just improve my finger wiggling.....
How in the world did you end up in Montana Miss Lonley? And, at the risk of starting the dots no dots thing have you access to the Montana Irish Tunes books?? (This is probably not the palce to respond but I do have the curiosity...)
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
Heh, which Montana Irish Tune books? If you mean the three volume "Helena Irish Session" set, then, yes, I can point you in the right direction.
I'm a US army brat, lived all over, including 3 years in Europe as a kid. But I was lucky enough to bump into Irish trad through house sessions at John Vesey's in Philadelphia, and then learn directly from a well known Irish fiddler in Portland, OR.
Montana? That's where my great-grandfather homesteaded 120 years ago, and so family vacations here kept me coming back till I simply stayed. Despite our distance from Cruise's Pub, we've had a decent session going here for 12 years.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Will writes: "And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button."
As usual, you completely missed my point and continue to obfuscate it rather than accepting or understanding what I was saying. You had said: "Hmmm. I don't see the discussion here as trying to dismiss modal theory "for everyone else."
The quotes I posted clearly demonstrated exactly that: I was pointing to Michael's statement and others where "you" is meaning everyone else and not me personally... dismissing it for "everyone else" and not me personally. As I said, I try to express my opinions as things that I do that help me... I don't dismiss outright what other people say or instruct them about how they are "wrong" and getting it wrong etc. Please read the comments before you take you errant positions on what was being said.
As I said, I have no problem with different opinions being expressed, and I rather enjoy them because I always come away having learned something, but the pedantry and condescension that comes from the usual contributers seems to be predictable and is completely unnecessary.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
At this point I'd like to thank Earl Cameron for taking the time to start this thread and for his effort to post something he thought might be useful. It's a pity that nay sayers here thought it was necessary to tear it down or proclaim its irrelevance, but I applaud the effort. Even though the tradition might not refer to modes when they have conversations about the tunes, as PJ pointed out, it still can't be denied that modal theory is closely related to the tonal structure of Irish music nonetheless. Realizing this relationship neither means one doesn't appreciate or understand the nuances of Irish music, or that you can't play it "right." At the end of the day, understanding modal theory and its relationship to Irish music is yet another tool one can ether take advantage of or set aside. Again, thanks to Earl Cameron.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
fingering charts! someone is venturing out. ;)
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
"I don't dismiss outright what other people say or instruct them about how they are "wrong" and getting it wrong etc. Please read the comments before you take you errant positions on what was being said." - posted by Phantom Button
"(The next post will no doubt say: "Anyone who uses modal theory to understand the subtleties of Irish music is getting it all wrong and depending on recordings and sheet music instead of sitting at the feet of the masters in Irish music holy places like Ireland or Montana.")" - posted by Phantom Button
"Well, you can be on a spiritual path about the whole thing and disregard physics and theory all you like if that floats your boat, but it sounds as silly as a pool player claiming the act of knocking balls into pockets has nothing to do with physics and theory." - posted by Phantom Button
" I think if you have anything to be "sad" about it's your own lack of knowledge about what has been said in this thread before you opened your mouth and placed your foot squarely inside." - posted by Phantom Button
LOL, it's risky to believe in your own publicity.
# Posted on November 14th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I think it's interesting that within a minute of posting this thread, there was a counter thread "Modes and their stupid names." It's like some musicians, when you start to talk about theory, just fire off an alarm clock in their brain and go into fight or flight mode.
This may not be true, but such musicians that I have known in real life tend come across to me as not very good.
Such players can't back a tune because It has a chord that they
"haven't learned yet." Well...how do you not know how to make a Bb chord? can you make a C chord? yes. can you make a D chord? yes. Bb is the same chord down a whole step from C. Musicians who at least understand what basic theory is, don't have barriers to learning any music they want to learn, as long as they don't expect that music to conform to what they already know, and use what they know, to understand what the music itself is saying.
I know a guy who has played concertina for 5 years and can't play Spencil Hill. because he has to learn how to connect the notes together on his instrument, and that's a barrier that you must pass as a musician, to be able to play with intention. Using "western scales" I learned how to play a handful of tunes on the concertina within days, so that I could be equipped to teach him how to play, at least on the most rudimentary level. Like... where the notes are on the darned thing. I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to learn concertina by ear without a teacher to direct them. You really have to map out the notes, with each note being in 2 or 3 different places, it is a lot like guitar, once you learn them all, you can choose on the fly, which allows you to use desirable finger patterns and bellows direction.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Music may sound magical. But I heard once that magic is science that we don't understand yet. This dig us down into a spiritual argument. Is there a divine influence to life? and if so, is it attached to life, being life itself, or is it removed from or higher than life. Can we ever really "understand" it? probably not, but we can certainly understand a lot of things about it. Existence itself is elusive. I don't think that means we shouldn't try to understand, because in my experience, understanding cultivates appreciation.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Earl, I teach music for a living, I teach all sorts of theory, including standard western modal theory. It's especially appropriate for fixed pitch and fretted instruments that play chords.
I just find that I understand this music better when I don't impose foreign systems of theory and notation on it. But then I play fiddle, so all those "other" notes and timings and "ambiguities," integral as they are to this music, are available to me.
Sure, some people have a knee-jerk reaction against music theory. But some of the more enlightening comments on this thread came from several people who are highly educated in and who have a very good grasp of music theory.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
FWIW, one of the modal charts posted here: http://www.slowplayers.org/SCTLS/modes.htm (and cited way above near the top of this thread) is one I put together some years ago.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I don't fault a person for wanting a rational explanation. I continue to study various musical theories. I think the brain may work in one way when discussing music & a different way when playing music. The latter also cultivates appreciation ~ not always in a form which can be put into words.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
My favorite contribution to this thread is the one from PJ Doherty. He neither dismisses nor endorses Modal theory, but instead brings the question into focus by pointing out that he has never heard the theory being referred to in conversations trad players have about the music. I find that to be the case as well, but that still doesn't eliminate it from my personal consideration, especially since I have a background in music theory in general. Because I DID study music theory, I found modal theory very useful in gaining my personal understanding; it helped me pinpoint where the discrepancies as well as the things in common were. Does this mean I can't play the music or that I have it all wrong? Well, I suppose others would have their own opinions on this, but I feel I have gained insights into the enjoyment of the music both as a listener and player.
I have told my students that many irish tunes hinge on a pentatonic scale, and I show them what the basic pentatonic scales are along with the modes. They seem to benefit from this information, but I don't dwell on it as the music speaks for itself after that. Was I steering them astray by the mere mention of those things? Am I showing them the "wrong way"? Will they not get it right unless they repent and accept the music without any mention or consideration of modal theory? I guess we'll only know for sure on Judgment Day.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Miss Lonelyhearts, I know that you have some theory training as I have read your transcriptions on this site. The one I remember right now is Sparky's, or perhaps it was Jimmy's Return. You cannot accurately transcribe music without some form of theory that can be applied to every possibility. The Circle of Fifths is useful, because (at least for a 12 tone scale) it includes keys that include every possible note for a broad range of western music. And it falls somewhat short when it comes to chromatically altered keys such as Harmonic and Melodic Minor, and many many others. These keys must be chromatically altered because their key forms diverge from the Major scale pattern of whole steps and half steps, while modes do not.
Maybe it feels limiting to think that all of the "minor" tunes we know in this tradition are actually the Major scale, but it is also enlightening to know how many possibilities there are in one musical pattern, and how many more when alterations of that pattern are employed.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
"Judgement Day" ? Oh for christ sake bring it on. this is becoming the most tedious and repetitious threads ever.
XXXXXX, OOOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXXOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, ODOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, OXDOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
XXXXXX, ODOOOO, XXOOOO, XXXXXX,
Stick that in your feckin modal theory and come back to me after your feckin judgement day.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Modes!
Earl writes: "I wouldn't blame anybody for not being able to learn concertina by ear without a teacher to direct them."
~~~
Indeed, I spent the first 5 years teaching myself concertina without any guidance and when I met actual concertina players using the Irish system, I could see I had mapped it out incorrectly. The first clue was meeting and hearing Maureen Murtaugh, and then getting lessons from Noel Hill shortly after that. As it turned out I had applied my piano knowledge and western melodic logic to irish music and made it sound like the concertina was a piano keyboard instead of a concertina. I basically had to start over again and retool my entire approach.
Of course since it was concertina and being fixed pitch the problem I was having isn't related to the controversy in this thread. It was more about the discrepancies between a Western melodic approach and Irish concertina logic. One of the first things I noticed was how many rules were being broken, In other words, notes being used in triplets and other decorations were coming from all over the instrument rather than from the note above or below in the scale as was taught to me according to piano and other melody system logic. Noel acknowledged that the system was borrowing notes that defied logic at times, but he said he listened to pipers playing to get ideas about how to design his decorations and stylings to best function in context with the music.
In the case of the concertina, I DID try to "shoehorn" (as Michael put it) Western melodic logic into the concertina, and it WAS the wrong approach to take. But upon finally receiving actual instruction, knowing where I was "breaking rules" did facilitate my general understanding.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
LOL... Michael can deliver more than his fair share of sarcasm but obviously gets his knickers all in a twist over it when it comes back at him.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes! But somewhat off topic. Actually completely off topic
Miss Lonely said: Heh, which Montana Irish Tune books? If you mean the three volume "Helena Irish Session" set, then, yes, I can point you in the right direction.
Yes it is the Helena Irish Session set I'm talking about. Probably the only ones from the state me thinks. And where are you in Montana?
Probably we should take this off the discussion list. I'm at
cboody at mchsi.com (obvious how to interpret that I think).
And, what is the protocol to take a discussion off list here?? Can anyone help me out?
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by cboody
Re: Modes!
Earl, the problem with submitting tunes here in abc is that you *have* to declare a key/mode to post the tune. That has nothing to do with the tunes themselves and everything to do with the conventions of abc notation and the way this site is set up. I don't have a problem with it--but it's a clear and obvious departure from how I think of and understand the tunes.
The Circle of Fifths is great for 90% of western music. I teach it all the time with my rock, punk, metal, bluegrass, and American music students. Not so much--not at all really--with people learning Irish traditional music.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I'll pm you cboody, but it's me you're looking for. I compiled the Helena Irish Session tunebooks. (See, I'm not the anti-dot, anti-theory, anti-Western conventions nazi some here paint me out to be. I just know when to apply that knowledge, and when it gets in the way of deeper understanding.)
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
ooooo Awesome!
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
LOL, I always say it's healthy to get in touch with your inner child. Even, in this case, if it *is* a sarcastic 13 year old. LOL.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
I didn't realize a "deeper understanding" meant getting in touch with your inner child, Will. But do you really consider need yourself to be a "sarcastic 13 year old"? That might be just a tad too deep.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
I have studied theory ~
After 1 hour class was dismissed ;)
I have a theory about theory threads:
The classical model for discussing/illustrating musical progression is the keyboard. White keys & black keys. The circle of fifths, modulation of the tonic without changing key signature (modal theory), counterpoint, minor thirds, chord inversions.
I may even go as far as to say any musical theory may be illustrated perfectly on the piano keyboard. I do not dismiss the theories being mentioned in this thread.
I trust no one actually wants me to say what my theory is?
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Random_notes
~ Random character ~
Possible not - but glad you have resumed putting the tilde in your changed subject lines. Otherwise we have to rely on a missing nose in the first line to know its you ;)
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by david_h
I'll take that as a yes . . .
even though it is clearly not. here is a link covering my theory ~ in a nutshell -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbNEOJMGFAo&feature
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Is this the longest thread in the history of the session where the word 'performance' was not part of the discussion?
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
Ooops, please belay my last, sorry to bring that particular cat out of the bag!
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Modes!
3 June 2004 ~ a day which shall live in infamy.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Controversial word's that should be excluded from discussions on this website;
1) Perform
2) noodle
3) mode
Warning: these words can cause some members to become over-excited and irrational if you relate them to traditional Irish music in any way, shape or form.
# Posted on November 15th 2009 by Phantom Button
Modes!
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
That was supposed to be:
Scales
Arpeggios
Metronomes
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by david_h
Re: Modes!
Why? What's wrong with noodling?
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by ethical blend
Re: Modes!
You love it Gilder.
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
I don't think I "love it," but it is interesting and perplexing to me how using simple terms in here is like opening Pandora's Box. Sometimes I think perhaps people are just taking it all a bit too seriously. I love and respect the music as much as the next guy, and have devoted 30 years attempting to play it, but I don't feel like I have to stand guard with shield and sword to defend it. I find it interesting that the people that DO take such a hardline stand tend to be living in their own ITM outposts outside of Ireland. I have never witnessed irish people getting worked up like this over these terms or references.
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Fair play
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
The missing nose came up earlier ~ ;) as opposed to
The nose is not what I consider to be missing. I am paying homage to one of my favourites members. She tends to come around rarely. Cheers Ms. Lee
;)
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Yer right, Jack. Michael, cboody, and I are precisely everything you say we are: irrational, in denial, over-excited, obsessive, humorless but silly know-nothings seething over our keyboards in backwater outposts far from the heart of Irish traditional music, typing every word with great gnashing of teeth. You are so remarkably insightful. Thank you for being the spokesmodel for the board and setting everyone straight.
It is incomprehensible why Jeremy lets me continue to post, since I am clearly such a resolute, perennial obstacle to rational, realistic, knowledge-based discourse. I should be banned forever.
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Besides you competing alphas there are the rest of us. Hello!
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Random_notes
Re: Modes!
Howdy Ben!
Be careful now--you don't want to be seen talking to one of the irrational Gang of Three. Guilt by association, you know....
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
Gee, Will, I guess you aren't reading your own posts now. Nowhere in that last post of mine is your name or anyone else, but you apparently saw yourself in it.
Will writes: "And as Jeremy likes to remind all of us, don't take things here personally. All of the "you's" above sound to me like generic you's, not you, Mr Button."
Perhaps you should heed your own advice... or does it only apply to me and not yourself? Maybe if I had your "deeper understanding"... hmmmm?
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
Jack you are by far too clever for me. Thanks again to your prescience and sharp logic, I'm caught out again as the fool, and blind to boot.
I'm so hopelessly beneath the quality of discourse here, I'll just pack my bag and spend my time misinterpreting tunes and doing a disservice to the tradition I know so little about.
Thanks again Jack, for helping me see the error of my ways. Ta.
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Miss Lonelyhearts
Re: Modes!
"I'll just pack my bag and spend my time misinterpreting tunes and doing a disservice to the tradition I know so little about."
These are your words and I've never heard anyone here imply any such thing about you. I hope your self esteem will benefit from your endeavors, whatever they may be.
# Posted on November 16th 2009 by Phantom Button
Re: Modes!
I'm glad you got this out of your systems - now the Thanksgiving political discussions with your in-laws will pale in comparison
# Posted on November 18th 2009 by airport
Re: Modes!
One thing. Although Relative minors have little to do with what key a tune is in (At least it's a different relationship) Tunes in Major keys almost always borrow from the relative minor chord (possibly more often than the chord based off the dorian mode!?), so it's not removed from the music really. This music is played as though the relative minor key is a second above the tonic in terms of tunes that are played in a "minor" key, but in Major tunes the relative minor chord that is used more often in melodies is the chord based on the note a minor third below the tonic. That's why I was confused and thought there were more classically minor tunes than there actually are, now that I've been thinking about tunes I've been playing are minor or dorian, they are exclusively in the dorian mode, and when I find one that isn't it sounds out of place. But so many tunes seem to fake moving between Major to relative minor and back again is because they only have to avoid one note for that phrase where tonality shifts.
# Posted on November 29th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: Modes!
Dunno who's still reading this far but in case you missed it in the other thread, a plug for my tutorial on modes as found in Scottish music, with a few hundred examples in ABC:
http://www.campin.me.uk/Music/Modes/
Virtually no Irish examples, but the same principles apply.
# Posted on December 2nd 2009 by Jack Campin