you basically answered his question about why it is like that with that it is like that. what an insight.

 

C and G are keys, major and mixolydian are modes.

mixolydian is not more a mode of ionian and aeolian than the other way round.

 

If you think C and G are complicated spare a thought for the Germans, they have an H too.

 

since i had internet at home i switched to call it bee and bee flat because otherwise noone understands you

 

Actually, I stand corrected. You are right. So perhaps the right thing is both good and bad.
Where is Ted Nugent when you need a riff?

 

read again carefully, thats what I wrote: dont mix the "areas" of modes and keys

note carefully, i wrote "C major" meaning as a key example against ionian or mixolidyan, you can ignore "major" if you know what I am talking about. The problem in this thread is just there, everyone is mixing that concept, thats why I added "major". I also added clearly that "there is no fight between keys and modes", so the question makes no sense. You should add this, as it seems that you have this concept clear

I keep yours as a more precise addition to what I meant.

 

Hello there Somnambulist, sorry for waking you up, I hope you're not in a bad mood. The pink highlight is just a mere wordplay. It wasn’t an attribution directed at you, but I can’t help associating that word with our postmodernist frustrated trool:



Of course, jazz musicians know other scales and approaches stemming from different musical disciplines and other practices, and each style has its unique place in jazz history. At no point did I say that jazz musicians only use modes (I meant that they are part of the jazz musician's fluent vocabulary when thinking about modal intent), and it’s quite obvious that musical creativity is rooted in multiple factors and influences. Generalizations are more a result of the framing rather than the actual practice itself, where everything happens simultaneously, all together and intertwined. So, there is great danger in extreme simplifications, in single-cause narratives to explain complex phenomena, but we are just discussing a topic here, not writing scientific articles, right?

Honestly, Lois, nowadays I think we join a post to help someone and it feels like the house is falling apart! While I like the idea of abandoning blame and seeking more complex and integrated solutions, I think that goes far beyond the question raised in the original post. Besides, this would be a great philosophical discussion for a bar table, with a cold beer and some good snacks (which doesn’t seem to be the case here, unfortunately!).

 

Last edited: Mar 12, 2025 at 1:21 PM

You are a very intelligent man. I sincerely apologise if I came across as annoyed. I think what is bothering me most of all at the moment and I am finding difficulty sometimes separating it, is extreme sadness at how poorly some humans are treating each other on the world stage.

You are correct. I think I was more upset with you because I have always found you much more lateral and it came across as extremely linear when I read it.

Unfortunately, we are all guilty of writing in almost shorthand bullet points to get a lot across, unaware of how easily any one of them can be misread, which by your explanation, seems that I did.
Thanks for the dignified reply. On re-reading my post before I replied here, you would have been justified to kick my rear for appearing obnoxious which was not my intent, yet you didn't. Thank you

 

No problem at all, my dear forum colleague! Likewise, I sincerely appreciate your honest, thoughtful, and prudent response (the care you took to clarify any potential misunderstanding). All these conversations, as interesting and informal as they may be, can sometimes result in imprecise excerpts or momentary simplifications. Honestly, I see this situation as an opportunity to learn, to better understand others, and also to improve my communication, as I am not a native English speaker.

Currently, the general atmosphere seems a bit tense, heavy, permeated with conflicts, and even significant disrespect for human dignity, which highlights the importance of cordiality and consideration towards others. And you, in addition to being intelligent, possess a strong sense of empathy and self-awareness, which I hope remain ever-present during uncertain times. May you always have good company to share interesting conversations, enriching reflections, and moments of personal growth. Wishing you all the best in life!

 

While they do not use the word "modal", I'd argue that modal-like concepts are the basis of musical traditions in most cultures. Note that I'm not referring to the eight modes derived from the western major scale.

Western "functional harmony" is not the norm, it is the exception. I dislike how in western discourse, functional harmony is often explained as "how music/harmony works" when in most cultures, it was not how music works.

 

The problem with the word "modal" is that it usually refers to multiple musical traditions that can be really different from each other, even though they might share a few common traits. People in the West usually learn about modalism through more recent styles (like modal jazz) and then assume they understand what modalism is, as if it's just one simple, unified concept. So when they come across terms like "Greek modes", they immediately think they know what's going on. They don't even suspect how alien, different and genuinely weird ancient Greek music theory actually is.

Now, even though we don't know a ton about ancient Greek music, we do have a much clearer picture of medieval and Renaissance modal music. And just by looking at these traditions, we can already see how completely different those musical cultures were compared to our modern ideas about modalism.

The truth is, the word "modal" doesn't mean much without context. That's why I'm always careful whenever I use it. I prefer to use the appropriate terminology whenever possible, such as tonoi, genera, tetrachords, etc., when discussing ancient Greek music theory. Attempting to understand a culture through its own worldview and values always creates deeper opportunities for genuine understanding, if that makes sense.

 

And to you too
As briefly as possible, A couple of European friends asked why I never correct their English. It made me aware that in many ways Music is as convoluted as the English language with so many terms and principles appearing to be the same thing and occasionally spelled the same way when they are not. e.g. 'using the clave would work well in this tune' against 'It is a 2:3 clave in this tune not a 3:2 clave'. And the usual that everyone sees in English randomly with there, they're and their/whether and weather, no wonder anyone gets confused learning English and music. Remembering that none of us have enough time to learn everything there is to know, I do believe it is not only good for our soul in all we do, it's important to remember that whatever we learned took time and it was due to others being patient with us. Even more important in a time where a greater majority seem so unaccountable, I believe anyone who knows how important it is to be accountable has a responsibility to do so by example or it will remain the same and never change. Always great to hear you.

 

Agreed -There is a reality to this but it messes some people up and they probably won't believe anyone who says it. There is a point in anyone's learning, just like a spoken language, where everything is so familiar(more than that), where you just do not think about it at all and just do everything without thought. This is especially true in improvisation in any style or genre with a seasoned musician, just like speaking naturally about anything with a friend that you both spent a lot of time in. Music is a conversation. If it wasn't, nobody would ever get an emotional reaction from it. Some describe it as familiarity but that word is inadequate. Sorry I couldn't immediately think of a better one.