i have an aversion to learning this stuff about modes,
i dont really believe it anyway, but i also
think part of this is that the names are fracking ridiculous.
i can hear the different modeyness of tunes in sessions, and when backing i play along fine- i dont need to know the name of the mode, my ear does it for me.
but if a certain mode was named "edgey", or "joyboy" it might make more sense.
from what i see at the moment we have
"wixiligosteriod mode". oh that means you can use these chords.
why would you want to learn something that plants such stupid words in your head when a certain tune comes round?
this makes the whole thing as interesting as walking round ikea.
those of you who are convinced by the modes thing, perhaps you could come up with some useful names for philistines such as me?
I kind of like the names. Although I do realise that, like the major/minor system, modes were invented for other music than ITM, so you can't expect the system to fit all of the tunes.
You could just say "minor with flattened sixth" for Aeolian or "minor with raised sixth" for Dorian, and " major with flattened seventh" for Myxolidian. But that sounds so unsoulful.
You don't need to know anything about the modes as long as you can play along with them using your ear. That is fine. Denying that they even exist however is like denying that it is dark at night. It is like denying that eating a chocolate cake will make you fat. It is like denying the holocaust. Now I am sure you don't want to be one of those people!
Hmmmm.
no trolling here, i really dont think this is something one need to specifically think about/learn ( if you know what you are doing?)
i think sometimes you can fill your head with poop, instead of just getting into something intuitively.
its quite possible that some of us "get it", and some of us need a name for it.
(i think?) I get it, and so i dont understand why you need to bother with those silly words.
if we really have to talk about this stuff;
what i was sort of looking for here is this.
major sounds happy
minor sounds sad.
fill in the blanks for your modes.
i'm not sure that my stance on the mode thing makes me a neo nazi..........................
I’ve found the modes to be occasionally very useful in conversation with somebody who’s familiar with them. I also understand that there are plenty of people who aren’t interested in, or have trouble with, applying even that much structure to their understanding of music.
My dear wife gets seriously annoyed when I use the modal terminology to describe a tune to her. My son, on the other hand, has had the concept and terms since he was ten years old, so he knows instantly what I mean when I ask, “Did you like that mixolydian tune near the end of the album?”
If we didn’t have that common terminology, it would take more effort to ask the same question.
Ionian = Natural Major, or
Major second, Major third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and Major seventh.
Dorian = Ascending melodic minor, or
Major second, minor third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and minor seventh.
Mixolydian = fifth degree Major (with minor seventh), or
Major second, Major third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and of course minor seventh.
Aeolian = natural melodic minor, or
Major second, minor third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, minor sixth and minor seventh.
These modes, along with the other three (phrygian, Lydian and Locrian), are the foundation of the tonal system as elaborated by composers and theoreticians of the baroque period. As No Cause For Alarm puts it, you don't need to know about them to play, but denying them their usefulness as tools to understand music is pointless.
And Steve points out you can even use the Lydian mode with it's augmented fourth (to say nothing yet of it's harmonic use as fourth degree to Ionian)! That's Super Major! And phrygian can be used as descending melodic minor...
There's nothing wrong with working this music (or any other) strictly by ear, and fair play to you if you can, but being able to fix a vocabulary to mental construction is too useful for me to not take advantage from. Not to mention it really is useful for getting your fingers around a tune when you know exactly where your "points d'appui" can be found on the fingerboard of your fiddle (sorry, couldn't find the equivalent in English).
"really is useful for getting your fingers around a tune when you know exactly where your "points d'appui" can be found"
Never asume a tune is going to go somewhere because of a prior learned piece of technical theory. You will make mistakes when learning tunes. A lot of very nice subtle bits of tunes are lost in this way. Use your ears only.
Michael, the subtleties of the tunes can entirely be accommodated through the modal declination system, and the tonal one as well, in the form of accidental notes (notes étrangères).
Without contest, your ear will always be the final judge of what fits and what doesn't, but surely having a clear mental conceptualisation of where you are and where you're going can't hurt?
i was recently playing at a party and someone requested the Okey -Cokey in the style of zorba the greek.
i suppose this actually ended up being played in quaxibobble-esque mode;
at the time we were just enjoying the fact it was funny.
--------
please dont think i'm being hostile; i just have never ever had an experience that made me think the mode-gonque approach is worth investigating. but if it works for you, thats fine too.
Steve -- I would have to say that Gillan's Apples can more accurately be thought of a being in G major (Ionian mode).
The actual notes are all compatible with G Lydian, but the overall feel of the tune is very much G major-ish.
It just happens to
(1) not have any C naturals and
(2) have some C# accidentals as passing tones that resolve to D naturals.
You can demonstrate the G major-ness by incorporating variations that incorporate C naturals, as well as some that contain C#'s, and comparing them see which sounds normal. I think it's the C naturals hands down.
Rumpole is probably seething now after all this analyzing.
This is the trouble. The way I play Gillan's apples(on a D diatonic harmonica, no bends, no accidentals), that augmented fourth in "the key of G," that C sharp, is always there, something I couldn't play without bends on a G harmonica. So the guitar men are happy to think it's in G major, but it isn't really is it. You call the C sharps accidentals. But I can't play accidentals on a diatonic harp. But I can play all the notes of Gillan's Apples, a "G tune," on a D harp. So!
And, Michael, I like to consider modes in Irish tunes because of that antiquity thing that connects Irish tunes to the old church modes, like a sort of golden chain (a term I shamelessly nick from Sir George Grove, who is safely dead). It's a great thought, though it doesn't affect in the slightest the way I learn or play the tunes. A little depth is surely no bad thing (even when I get it arse about face).
We had a piano accordionist who came to the session and insisted in playing on just about everything, both left hand sna right flailing away, even though he didn't know any of the tunes--noodle, noodle, noodle. I think he was in the Dyslexian mode...
To-day do I bake, tomorrow I brew,
The day after that the queen's child comes in;
And oh! I am glad that nobody knew
That the name I am called is Rumpole-stiltskin!"
Informative and hilarious - the ideal discussion. I did open it first without my glasses on thinking it said "models and their stupid names" - preparing to leap to their defence (I was at a life-drawing session last night). We did have a model called Lydia once though.
A number of years ago in a fiddle class in Miltown (Willie week) some cretin in the class started twittering on about modes. The teacher a very well known and respected fiddle player (I wont say who because that would be name dropping) said "Look, just play the f***ing tune". I think that sums it up in a nutshell. You don't need to know about all these things, just play what you hear.
On journies through different landscapes, times and ideas, when I've come across any of those now deceased greats of this music, and related forms, I've never met one who chose to ignore the thing they loved, the music or the dance, and who didn't have an undying curiosity about it and related things. They loved their instrument, they loved the music, and learning more about it was like homebaked goods to a child ~ biscuits/cookies, candies ~ they would always reach out for it, not slam the door or turn their back on it. They wanted to know, they longed to know and understand more. The great joy in these old codgers, man or woman, and many of the young too, was that that child's curiosity about things was alive, in their eyes, in their chat, in their music and dance.
It's like the old notion that some 'new-age' types have that you must be musically illiterate to play this music right, to be 'traditional'. Even notation is a tradition, and I've rarely met any of these old folk who couldn't read and write some kind of notation, from ABCs dating back to the late 1800s, to Solfeggio, to dots ~ and even an awarness, aurally and intellectually, of modes, also sometimes called 'church modes'. They weren't stupid, they weren't sensory dead, they were alive and carried the spark of their interest and passion to the very end...
That said, if ignorance makes you feel superior, well, who am I to question it... We all have our quirky ways...
I am resigned to the view that so far as aesthetics are concerned I am to a great extent trapped by my experiences and feel that knowledge is as likely to free me a little as trap me further. But for where I am at tunes may be a better use of my time.
ceolachan, 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.
I know I am late, but you guys know that these are the Greek modes used by the Church, right? the names are from Greek city-states, or regions or something like that. There were places called Lydia and Phrygia and Ionia and all that.
The Catholic Church brought these modes to Ireland centuries ago. That's why they are in the music. People sang these cadence patterns at Mass every week for over a thousand years
I had tried to bridge the gap between theoretical modal theory (i.e. 'nonsense') and applied ('the strummer is strumming Bm and it sounds good, what damn mode is this?') but I fear the gap is too wide and we simply must all struggle alone in our separate camps.
Pie a la mode for me, and a cup of coffee, thanks.
llig: How about, "did you like that tune that goes ...." then you sing a bit of it.? Or is singing bits of tunes too much effort?
Too much effort? You’re talking to someone who has been regularly laughed at for near-constant singing/whistling/whisper-lilting of tunes.
But, how about making use of an available word capable, in the current context, of focusing attention exactly where it’s wanted? Should I say, “Did you like the way he played that tune that goes dee-diddley-dum-deedle-deedle-deedle-dum…” or might it be acceptable to say, “Did you like the way he played Rakish Paddy”? If somebody didn't know the title, I'd be happy to lilt or whistle the tune.
“Mixolydian” is just a word that’s occasionally useful as a shorthand reference. Applying it proscriptively to this music would be ignorant silliness, but banning it would make no more sense than banning words like “minor,” “major” or “swing” because they can be misinterpreted or are somewhat vague.
I rejected learning a lot of the theory for a long time. But what happened over time is that I was figuring some of this stuff out on my own, just from playing tunes, and noticing differences. And ultimately, those realizations merged with the theory that I was learning in classes or workshops, and it stopped sounding like gibberish to me.
So, while I don't use any of the modal theory to help with accompaniment or anything, since I am a melody player, I do use it as a reference framework when I'm playing a tune. And it helps me understand things about the music, like why certain parts of tunes sound "interesting", or "twisty". Often, because they're switching modes, or at least temporarily deviating from fitting within a particular key/mode. What's interesting is that our brains hear that, and categorize it as interesting, even if we don't know a thing about modal theory.
A little knowledge helps you to see beauty and patterns in things that might just have escaped you before. I learned nearly all the tunes I can play before I knew what a church mode was, but I'm glad I know about 'em now. Not because they help me to learn tunes or play them better but because I prefer knowing to not knowing.
For me, music theory, including modes, is an interesting diversion (Get a life? Nah - I'd rather enjoy myself) and sometimes a useful aid to understanding relationships between melody and harmony, between different musical traditions/genres, the evolution of European Art Music and so on.
But I share rumpole's frustration with the idea that knowing the mode of a tune tells you how to harmonize it. How can you possibly back a tune properly unless you can simply *listen to it*, *hear a chord in your head* and *play the chord*? No theory necessary - whatever sounds right. (I am a bit slow on the 'hearing the chord' to 'playing the chord' link - which is why I only do a bit of backing among friends, who are likely to forgive me my transgressions). No doubt someone, somewhere will disagree vehemently with your choice of chords, but that's just human nature.
"~ tunes may be a better use of my time." ~ david_h
& your ears, but that doesn't mean the mechanism in between has to be on hold or turned off... Theory is raised from practice, and the passion to know and understand. The problem only exists if you let it get in the way of the act of making music.
Moving away from music, I remember folks in the 60s that treated any in depth exploration into a work of literature, and the writer of said work(s), and the times that nurtured the imagination that drove it ~ would somehow sully the work, dirty it, destroy the passion and the inspiration there. So, if you liked a certain poet, and to drag one of many out, I like Han Shan, and you find out something about the author and the times, it would diminish the value of the work. In other words, looking too deeply would spoil if for you. Well, I liked his wit and ways when first I read it, and having read it in several translations since, and studied something about the times and the hermit ~ it only increases my pleasure for it.
Music is magic, but understanding that alchemy makes us better magicians and musicians, not worse. Understanding is something more than just knowing. You move past understanding to doing, to making music. If you're happy just knowing it whistfully, just playing and enjoying, hey, that's great. But, most people with a passion find questions and curiosity constantly bubbling out of that. I know I do. Every opportunity I can get to understand things better, in and around music, I want to take advantage of, not to tie things up in knots. That's not understanding. Knowledge, understanding, frees you, it doesn't destroy the thing it helps to give greater depth and understanding to.
This is a personal thing with us all, between us and the music. We choose our individual ways, and our wants and limitations. That's what makes it so varied and interesting, not just the music, but the characters drawn to it, curmudgeons included...
I had to say that last bit. There are a few of us about...
I have to say, while I love good accompaniment, it is generally pretty poor, in part because the ears can't tell the difference. But, when limited there, looking into these varieties of scales the tunes are built in at least holds the promise that maybe the clueless strummer will start to experiment and find that not everything is Major and works with the same few chords... Hell, if you're a strummer, look at all the possible variety that your frets offer you ~ what serious passion wouldn't want to better understand the instrument they play, and the music it makes?
Sadly, a lot, but the general run of clueless strummers I've suffered over time...
Just to repeat, I, and my wife, love good accompaniment, but have found it to be rare...
I find that understanding and appreciating modes is dead easy for the open minded that those with a child's curiosity, willing to poke around a little, and laugh, not take it seriously. It's only those with a kind of phobia about it that seem unable to fathom it, or who hate it and anything bordering on theory. But, there's always hope, and I have managed over time to break a few such phobias, and where it happened, I've no recollection of anyone regretting the understanding, or the laughter getting there...
Play on, keep listening, best of luck on whatever path you choose...
i agree there are not loads of good strummers;
speaking as an ok strummer (who doesnt actually back much),
i watch many strummers left hands, quite alot of these folk only know 5 chords. there i said it. shoot me.
-->
this issue is a long way behind the modes vs ear thing.
i know i can hear modeyness when i play (esp when backing)
but, i dont wnat to know the theory, until i see a reason for it.
ive yet to see a good argument for bothering.
in the meantime i'm happy being an idiot (savant?)
yor're sitting in a session,
and the leader, on a tune change, shouts out A! or D! to the backer, who then just rattles through a stock chord pattern which is sort of in the key that was shouted at him, but doesnt necessarily fit the tune.
and yet the backer wacks away seemingly obvilious, happy in the knowledge he's whacking I IV VI IV I progressions, or whatever they are (this is something else i dont know)
but it sounds wrong wrong wrong.
i know this isnt a modes thing, its definately a theory over ears thing, and i dislike it, not a little.
I'd be more than happy to have a strummer who knew just five chords if they knew exactly where to put them and strummed with a bit of lift and a little knowledge of the different kinds of rhythms in Irish music. I know I'm asking the Earth.
I think it was Woody Guthrie who said that anyone who played more than two chords in a song was just showing off.
Excellent cautionary note for strummers from Michael, from that other thread:
“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.”
'Theory' does have a ring of the swear word about it as some see and use it, but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music. If you see the colours in it, hear and sense the mood, that's a hell of a lot. You don't necessarily need names for them, but they can be useful.
You can tear a thing like a flower and it's plant down to the roots ~ and tag a name on every cell of it, looking at it microscopically, and that might help you to better understand and appreciate it. But you still have to take it as it is, to step back from all the minutiae and respect the whole of what it is ~ a flower, a plant, the sense of it ~ colour, scent, taste. That's what matters, and that's what makes us want to inspect something more closely, the whole of it that first took our attention. The 'theories' behind a thing, the nomenclature, these are just other ways to view, just convenient tools. They can never replace the whole, but they can help us to view it from other angles. They aren't 'required' to appreciate the flower or a tune... However, to accompany, yeah, they can make a positive difference to the outcome, horticulturist or musician...
Rumpole, The problem with your backer is he is using the wrong theory. I IV V is not as relevant in Irish music as other chord patterns that come from modal theory are equally important
such as when a tune is Dorian, the progression is mostly
I I I VI, which is a feeble attempt to illustrate that most tunes seem to follow a progression that stays in the tonic chord for many many beats only to bounce into the VI chord for a brief moment, maybe a beat, or two. Only when your backer understands the modes (not by asking at the session "what mode is that in) but by knowing the tunes, will he be able to back those tunes with chord progressions that are appropriate.
"but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music." - ceolachan.
Yes, good point. In fact a lot of music 'theory' isn't theory in the sense of scientific (pulling a flower to bits) theory. That's not to denigrate it but helps to distinguish between 'theory' about what creative people have done (tunes) and theory that engineers use to create things (vacume cleaners, atom bombs etc). I guess the perceptual psychologists bridge the two.
Well, I find the names useful, but some of the info out here is just plain wrong. Depending on how you want to number chords (I as home or I as home of the major key with the same signature) the dorian progression is I bVII I or else it is II I II. I find roman numerals odd applied to modes anyway. The E dorian progression is Emin - D - Emin. Applying Earl's rules it would be (I guess) Emin - C - Emin. Seems to me that'll get you as many black looks as I IV V in the wrong place. There are some other errors above too that I'm not going to bother correcting. Seems to me the two crucial points are:
1) Mode names are useful shorthand for a particular set of musical characteristics (Thanks coelachan)
2) The names are really only useful if they are associated in the user's mind with sound. It is hearing things that is the key, not naming things in the abstract; as it most often is with ITM and other trad musics.
modes, and their stupid names.
modes, and their stupid names.
i have an aversion to learning this stuff about modes,
i dont really believe it anyway, but i also
think part of this is that the names are fracking ridiculous.
i can hear the different modeyness of tunes in sessions, and when backing i play along fine- i dont need to know the name of the mode, my ear does it for me.
but if a certain mode was named "edgey", or "joyboy" it might make more sense.
from what i see at the moment we have
"wixiligosteriod mode". oh that means you can use these chords.
why would you want to learn something that plants such stupid words in your head when a certain tune comes round?
this makes the whole thing as interesting as walking round ikea.
those of you who are convinced by the modes thing, perhaps you could come up with some useful names for philistines such as me?
peace
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I kind of like the names. Although I do realise that, like the major/minor system, modes were invented for other music than ITM, so you can't expect the system to fit all of the tunes.
You could just say "minor with flattened sixth" for Aeolian or "minor with raised sixth" for Dorian, and " major with flattened seventh" for Myxolidian. But that sounds so unsoulful.
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by Bredna
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
You don't need to know anything about the modes as long as you can play along with them using your ear. That is fine. Denying that they even exist however is like denying that it is dark at night. It is like denying that eating a chocolate cake will make you fat. It is like denying the holocaust. Now I am sure you don't want to be one of those people!
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
OK, troll, I will bite.
You are being hostile to useful knowledge here, and for most shallow and insubstantial of reasons.
The names are not that bad! And there are only 4 you need to know for Irish trad music.
Ionian
Dorian
Mixolydian
Aeolian
Yes, only FOUR new words here to clog up your mental plumbing. You can recite them over and over while you walk around Ikea.
This terminology has been in use for centuries and is still in wide circulation. Why fight it?
# Posted on November 5th 2009 by timmy!
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
My least favorite mode is "Depeche"
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
My very favorite is "pie ala".
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by tacoman
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Hmmmm.
no trolling here, i really dont think this is something one need to specifically think about/learn ( if you know what you are doing?)
i think sometimes you can fill your head with poop, instead of just getting into something intuitively.
its quite possible that some of us "get it", and some of us need a name for it.
(i think?) I get it, and so i dont understand why you need to bother with those silly words.
if we really have to talk about this stuff;
what i was sort of looking for here is this.
major sounds happy
minor sounds sad.
fill in the blanks for your modes.
i'm not sure that my stance on the mode thing makes me a neo nazi..........................
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Gillan's Apples is in Lydian mode the way I play it, timmy. Turnip Jig too.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Denier!
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I’ve found the modes to be occasionally very useful in conversation with somebody who’s familiar with them. I also understand that there are plenty of people who aren’t interested in, or have trouble with, applying even that much structure to their understanding of music.
My dear wife gets seriously annoyed when I use the modal terminology to describe a tune to her. My son, on the other hand, has had the concept and terms since he was ten years old, so he knows instantly what I mean when I ask, “Did you like that mixolydian tune near the end of the album?”
If we didn’t have that common terminology, it would take more effort to ask the same question.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
How about, "did you like that tune that goes ...." then you sing a bit of it.? Or is singing bits of tunes too much effort?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Ionian = Natural Major, or
Major second, Major third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and Major seventh.
Dorian = Ascending melodic minor, or
Major second, minor third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and minor seventh.
Mixolydian = fifth degree Major (with minor seventh), or
Major second, Major third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, Major sixth and of course minor seventh.
Aeolian = natural melodic minor, or
Major second, minor third, Perfect fourth, Perfect fifth, minor sixth and minor seventh.
These modes, along with the other three (phrygian, Lydian and Locrian), are the foundation of the tonal system as elaborated by composers and theoreticians of the baroque period. As No Cause For Alarm puts it, you don't need to know about them to play, but denying them their usefulness as tools to understand music is pointless.
And Steve points out you can even use the Lydian mode with it's augmented fourth (to say nothing yet of it's harmonic use as fourth degree to Ionian)! That's Super Major! And phrygian can be used as descending melodic minor...
There's nothing wrong with working this music (or any other) strictly by ear, and fair play to you if you can, but being able to fix a vocabulary to mental construction is too useful for me to not take advantage from. Not to mention it really is useful for getting your fingers around a tune when you know exactly where your "points d'appui" can be found on the fingerboard of your fiddle (sorry, couldn't find the equivalent in English).
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Fanning
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
"really is useful for getting your fingers around a tune when you know exactly where your "points d'appui" can be found"
Never asume a tune is going to go somewhere because of a prior learned piece of technical theory. You will make mistakes when learning tunes. A lot of very nice subtle bits of tunes are lost in this way. Use your ears only.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Michael, the subtleties of the tunes can entirely be accommodated through the modal declination system, and the tonal one as well, in the form of accidental notes (notes étrangères).
Without contest, your ear will always be the final judge of what fits and what doesn't, but surely having a clear mental conceptualisation of where you are and where you're going can't hurt?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Fanning
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
i was recently playing at a party and someone requested the Okey -Cokey in the style of zorba the greek.
i suppose this actually ended up being played in quaxibobble-esque mode;
at the time we were just enjoying the fact it was funny.
--------
please dont think i'm being hostile; i just have never ever had an experience that made me think the mode-gonque approach is worth investigating. but if it works for you, thats fine too.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
and i'd still like someone to have a crack at renaming them......
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Ownie
Dorry
Mixie
Ally
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by joesmith
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
We could rename Mixolydian to Dorian, after the famous tune in that mode, "Dinky Dorian's"
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
And what about
Friggy,
Lydie and
Lockie
?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Fanning
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Would that be "Mixie Dorian's"? Or "Dinky Mixo's"
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Fanning
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
i prefer
get a life,
nip yourself on the spine,
slap yourself in the face,
and
ooh sorry cant hear you, someone started a tune.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
ok that last one was a bit rude, sorry...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Steve -- I would have to say that Gillan's Apples can more accurately be thought of a being in G major (Ionian mode).
The actual notes are all compatible with G Lydian, but the overall feel of the tune is very much G major-ish.
It just happens to
(1) not have any C naturals and
(2) have some C# accidentals as passing tones that resolve to D naturals.
You can demonstrate the G major-ness by incorporating variations that incorporate C naturals, as well as some that contain C#'s, and comparing them see which sounds normal. I think it's the C naturals hands down.
Rumpole is probably seething now after all this analyzing.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by timmy!
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Here's my go at it--
Sad sack mode
You need medication mode
Happy mode
So stupid he's happy mode
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by shanty
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
This is the trouble. The way I play Gillan's apples(on a D diatonic harmonica, no bends, no accidentals), that augmented fourth in "the key of G," that C sharp, is always there, something I couldn't play without bends on a G harmonica. So the guitar men are happy to think it's in G major, but it isn't really is it. You call the C sharps accidentals. But I can't play accidentals on a diatonic harp. But I can play all the notes of Gillan's Apples, a "G tune," on a D harp. So!
And, Michael, I like to consider modes in Irish tunes because of that antiquity thing that connects Irish tunes to the old church modes, like a sort of golden chain (a term I shamelessly nick from Sir George Grove, who is safely dead). It's a great thought, though it doesn't affect in the slightest the way I learn or play the tunes. A little depth is surely no bad thing (even when I get it arse about face).
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I never said it wasn't interesting, I just said it doesn't help you understand the tunes
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Mode names are just as interesting as walking around Ikea? Then how about:
ABSORB
ALFHILD FÅGEL
etc, all the way to
ZAMIOCULCAS
Could catch on - especially for Nyckelharpa players.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Mark Harmer
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I agree. I just like to dig a bit deeper. Personality thang.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
With Michael that is. Not with walking around IKEA. I'd rather hack off me privates with a rusty machete.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Well, at the very least, the modes have provided one member here with a source for his screen name.
Guess who?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
A-holean?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
D Mix is cool - like J Lo or A Rod
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by airport
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Airport, getting close, but not quite there
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
We had a piano accordionist who came to the session and insisted in playing on just about everything, both left hand sna right flailing away, even though he didn't know any of the tunes--noodle, noodle, noodle. I think he was in the Dyslexian mode...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Oh brother is this becoming grimm.
To-day do I bake, tomorrow I brew,
The day after that the queen's child comes in;
And oh! I am glad that nobody knew
That the name I am called is Rumpole-stiltskin!"
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Lint - upon - Tweed
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
In the swirling fog of ITM, modes are lamp-posts. They can be used for support, illumination or p*ssing on.
The latter option is really for dogs and the very advanced.
I am neither.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by nicholas
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Informative and hilarious - the ideal discussion. I did open it first without my glasses on thinking it said "models and their stupid names" - preparing to leap to their defence (I was at a life-drawing session last night). We did have a model called Lydia once though.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by RichardB
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
A number of years ago in a fiddle class in Miltown (Willie week) some cretin in the class started twittering on about modes. The teacher a very well known and respected fiddle player (I wont say who because that would be name dropping) said "Look, just play the f***ing tune". I think that sums it up in a nutshell. You don't need to know about all these things, just play what you hear.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bernie
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Yep, play what you hear.
And the trouble with modal analysis is that, if your head is full of theory instead of practice, what you think you "hear" might not be what is played
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
On journies through different landscapes, times and ideas, when I've come across any of those now deceased greats of this music, and related forms, I've never met one who chose to ignore the thing they loved, the music or the dance, and who didn't have an undying curiosity about it and related things. They loved their instrument, they loved the music, and learning more about it was like homebaked goods to a child ~ biscuits/cookies, candies ~ they would always reach out for it, not slam the door or turn their back on it. They wanted to know, they longed to know and understand more. The great joy in these old codgers, man or woman, and many of the young too, was that that child's curiosity about things was alive, in their eyes, in their chat, in their music and dance.
It's like the old notion that some 'new-age' types have that you must be musically illiterate to play this music right, to be 'traditional'. Even notation is a tradition, and I've rarely met any of these old folk who couldn't read and write some kind of notation, from ABCs dating back to the late 1800s, to Solfeggio, to dots ~ and even an awarness, aurally and intellectually, of modes, also sometimes called 'church modes'. They weren't stupid, they weren't sensory dead, they were alive and carried the spark of their interest and passion to the very end...
That said, if ignorance makes you feel superior, well, who am I to question it... We all have our quirky ways...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ceolachan
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I am resigned to the view that so far as aesthetics are concerned I am to a great extent trapped by my experiences and feel that knowledge is as likely to free me a little as trap me further. But for where I am at tunes may be a better use of my time.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
ceolachan, 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 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I know I am late, but you guys know that these are the Greek modes used by the Church, right? the names are from Greek city-states, or regions or something like that. There were places called Lydia and Phrygia and Ionia and all that.
The Catholic Church brought these modes to Ireland centuries ago. That's why they are in the music. People sang these cadence patterns at Mass every week for over a thousand years
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Nate Ryan
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
And because they were just tags, with no inherent meaning , they did not realise that they had got them mixed up.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by david_h
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
The most useful mode is surely the one known as Com.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by OrganicPeatCreature
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I had tried to bridge the gap between theoretical modal theory (i.e. 'nonsense') and applied ('the strummer is strumming Bm and it sounds good, what damn mode is this?') but I fear the gap is too wide and we simply must all struggle alone in our separate camps.
Pie a la mode for me, and a cup of coffee, thanks.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Oh, and I always thought the modes were:
Ionannas (or jig or tradpiper)
Dora the Exploreroleon
Areolan
Nickelodeon
No?
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
TTSTTTS etc.
I can't make head nor tail of them either - must have been asleep in that tutorial.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by geoffwright
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
don't go mixing melodions either.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by geoffwright
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
llig: How about, "did you like that tune that goes ...." then you sing a bit of it.? Or is singing bits of tunes too much effort?
Too much effort? You’re talking to someone who has been regularly laughed at for near-constant singing/whistling/whisper-lilting of tunes.
But, how about making use of an available word capable, in the current context, of focusing attention exactly where it’s wanted? Should I say, “Did you like the way he played that tune that goes dee-diddley-dum-deedle-deedle-deedle-dum…” or might it be acceptable to say, “Did you like the way he played Rakish Paddy”? If somebody didn't know the title, I'd be happy to lilt or whistle the tune.
“Mixolydian” is just a word that’s occasionally useful as a shorthand reference. Applying it proscriptively to this music would be ignorant silliness, but banning it would make no more sense than banning words like “minor,” “major” or “swing” because they can be misinterpreted or are somewhat vague.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Of course you should ban words, though I'm amused by the word "mixolydian" as "shorthand"
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Sorry, shouldn't. (but should is funnier)
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
"mixolydian" as "shorthand"
Hmmm… yeah, you could almost describe it in the same number of syllables.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I rejected learning a lot of the theory for a long time. But what happened over time is that I was figuring some of this stuff out on my own, just from playing tunes, and noticing differences. And ultimately, those realizations merged with the theory that I was learning in classes or workshops, and it stopped sounding like gibberish to me.
So, while I don't use any of the modal theory to help with accompaniment or anything, since I am a melody player, I do use it as a reference framework when I'm playing a tune. And it helps me understand things about the music, like why certain parts of tunes sound "interesting", or "twisty". Often, because they're switching modes, or at least temporarily deviating from fitting within a particular key/mode. What's interesting is that our brains hear that, and categorize it as interesting, even if we don't know a thing about modal theory.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Reverend
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
A little knowledge helps you to see beauty and patterns in things that might just have escaped you before. I learned nearly all the tunes I can play before I knew what a church mode was, but I'm glad I know about 'em now. Not because they help me to learn tunes or play them better but because I prefer knowing to not knowing.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
For me, music theory, including modes, is an interesting diversion (Get a life? Nah - I'd rather enjoy myself) and sometimes a useful aid to understanding relationships between melody and harmony, between different musical traditions/genres, the evolution of European Art Music and so on.
But I share rumpole's frustration with the idea that knowing the mode of a tune tells you how to harmonize it. How can you possibly back a tune properly unless you can simply *listen to it*, *hear a chord in your head* and *play the chord*? No theory necessary - whatever sounds right. (I am a bit slow on the 'hearing the chord' to 'playing the chord' link - which is why I only do a bit of backing among friends, who are likely to forgive me my transgressions). No doubt someone, somewhere will disagree vehemently with your choice of chords, but that's just human nature.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by OrganicPeatCreature
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
BTW, I wrote the above about 6 hours ago but forgot to post it, which is why I've repeated more-or-less what evreybody else has said.
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by OrganicPeatCreature
Modes and ways and paranoid dreams ~
"~ tunes may be a better use of my time." ~ david_h
& your ears, but that doesn't mean the mechanism in between has to be on hold or turned off... Theory is raised from practice, and the passion to know and understand. The problem only exists if you let it get in the way of the act of making music.
Moving away from music, I remember folks in the 60s that treated any in depth exploration into a work of literature, and the writer of said work(s), and the times that nurtured the imagination that drove it ~ would somehow sully the work, dirty it, destroy the passion and the inspiration there. So, if you liked a certain poet, and to drag one of many out, I like Han Shan, and you find out something about the author and the times, it would diminish the value of the work. In other words, looking too deeply would spoil if for you. Well, I liked his wit and ways when first I read it, and having read it in several translations since, and studied something about the times and the hermit ~ it only increases my pleasure for it.
Music is magic, but understanding that alchemy makes us better magicians and musicians, not worse. Understanding is something more than just knowing. You move past understanding to doing, to making music. If you're happy just knowing it whistfully, just playing and enjoying, hey, that's great. But, most people with a passion find questions and curiosity constantly bubbling out of that. I know I do. Every opportunity I can get to understand things better, in and around music, I want to take advantage of, not to tie things up in knots. That's not understanding. Knowledge, understanding, frees you, it doesn't destroy the thing it helps to give greater depth and understanding to.
This is a personal thing with us all, between us and the music. We choose our individual ways, and our wants and limitations. That's what makes it so varied and interesting, not just the music, but the characters drawn to it, curmudgeons included...
I had to say that last bit. There are a few of us about...
I have to say, while I love good accompaniment, it is generally pretty poor, in part because the ears can't tell the difference. But, when limited there, looking into these varieties of scales the tunes are built in at least holds the promise that maybe the clueless strummer will start to experiment and find that not everything is Major and works with the same few chords... Hell, if you're a strummer, look at all the possible variety that your frets offer you ~ what serious passion wouldn't want to better understand the instrument they play, and the music it makes?
Sadly, a lot, but the general run of clueless strummers I've suffered over time...
Just to repeat, I, and my wife, love good accompaniment, but have found it to be rare...
I find that understanding and appreciating modes is dead easy for the open minded that those with a child's curiosity, willing to poke around a little, and laugh, not take it seriously. It's only those with a kind of phobia about it that seem unable to fathom it, or who hate it and anything bordering on theory. But, there's always hope, and I have managed over time to break a few such phobias, and where it happened, I've no recollection of anyone regretting the understanding, or the laughter getting there...
Play on, keep listening, best of luck on whatever path you choose...
# Posted on November 6th 2009 by ceolachan
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
nice post C.
i agree there are not loads of good strummers;
speaking as an ok strummer (who doesnt actually back much),
i watch many strummers left hands, quite alot of these folk only know 5 chords. there i said it. shoot me.
-->
this issue is a long way behind the modes vs ear thing.
i know i can hear modeyness when i play (esp when backing)
but, i dont wnat to know the theory, until i see a reason for it.
ive yet to see a good argument for bothering.
in the meantime i'm happy being an idiot (savant?)
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
connected to this is the following.
yor're sitting in a session,
and the leader, on a tune change, shouts out A! or D! to the backer, who then just rattles through a stock chord pattern which is sort of in the key that was shouted at him, but doesnt necessarily fit the tune.
and yet the backer wacks away seemingly obvilious, happy in the knowledge he's whacking I IV VI IV I progressions, or whatever they are (this is something else i dont know)
but it sounds wrong wrong wrong.
i know this isnt a modes thing, its definately a theory over ears thing, and i dislike it, not a little.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by rumpole
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
I'd be more than happy to have a strummer who knew just five chords if they knew exactly where to put them and strummed with a bit of lift and a little knowledge of the different kinds of rhythms in Irish music. I know I'm asking the Earth.
I think it was Woody Guthrie who said that anyone who played more than two chords in a song was just showing off.
Excellent cautionary note for strummers from Michael, from that other thread:
“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 7th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
'Theory' does have a ring of the swear word about it as some see and use it, but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music. If you see the colours in it, hear and sense the mood, that's a hell of a lot. You don't necessarily need names for them, but they can be useful.
You can tear a thing like a flower and it's plant down to the roots ~ and tag a name on every cell of it, looking at it microscopically, and that might help you to better understand and appreciate it. But you still have to take it as it is, to step back from all the minutiae and respect the whole of what it is ~ a flower, a plant, the sense of it ~ colour, scent, taste. That's what matters, and that's what makes us want to inspect something more closely, the whole of it that first took our attention. The 'theories' behind a thing, the nomenclature, these are just other ways to view, just convenient tools. They can never replace the whole, but they can help us to view it from other angles. They aren't 'required' to appreciate the flower or a tune... However, to accompany, yeah, they can make a positive difference to the outcome, horticulturist or musician...
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by ceolachan
P.S. ~ There are no modes without ears, no moods without senses...
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by ceolachan
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Aye, there are many layers, 'tis true.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Steve Shaw
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Rumpole, The problem with your backer is he is using the wrong theory. I IV V is not as relevant in Irish music as other chord patterns that come from modal theory are equally important
such as when a tune is Dorian, the progression is mostly
I I I VI, which is a feeble attempt to illustrate that most tunes seem to follow a progression that stays in the tonic chord for many many beats only to bounce into the VI chord for a brief moment, maybe a beat, or two. Only when your backer understands the modes (not by asking at the session "what mode is that in) but by knowing the tunes, will he be able to back those tunes with chord progressions that are appropriate.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
"but, in truth, modes aren't theory, they are just the name for identifying a collection of characteristics in music." - ceolachan.
Yes, good point. In fact a lot of music 'theory' isn't theory in the sense of scientific (pulling a flower to bits) theory. That's not to denigrate it but helps to distinguish between 'theory' about what creative people have done (tunes) and theory that engineers use to create things (vacume cleaners, atom bombs etc). I guess the perceptual psychologists bridge the two.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by david_h
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
By 'pulling a flower to bits' I meant 'how a flower works' theory.
# Posted on November 7th 2009 by david_h
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
sorry i taut you talk about models. the devil a care with love
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by Dodger
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
Well, I find the names useful, but some of the info out here is just plain wrong. Depending on how you want to number chords (I as home or I as home of the major key with the same signature) the dorian progression is I bVII I or else it is II I II. I find roman numerals odd applied to modes anyway. The E dorian progression is Emin - D - Emin. Applying Earl's rules it would be (I guess) Emin - C - Emin. Seems to me that'll get you as many black looks as I IV V in the wrong place. There are some other errors above too that I'm not going to bother correcting. Seems to me the two crucial points are:
1) Mode names are useful shorthand for a particular set of musical characteristics (Thanks coelachan)
2) The names are really only useful if they are associated in the user's mind with sound. It is hearing things that is the key, not naming things in the abstract; as it most often is with ITM and other trad musics.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by cboody
Re: modes, and their stupid names.
"i have an aversion to learning this stuff about modes,
i dont really believe it anyway..."
2 million Irish tunes can't be all wrong.
# Posted on November 8th 2009 by MartySmith