Talk:Mode (music)

Modes in the Key of C Major

I object to the title of this section. The phrase "Key of C Major" indicates the Major mode - the modern term for Ionian. Also, keys do not exist until a mode is established. Perhaps a better name would simply be "Modes of C"? --Tim Sabin (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your objection does seem well-founded. However, the phrase "modes of C" sounds like you might mean, e.g., C-Dorian (C-D-E♭-F-G-A-B♭-C), C-Phrygian (C-D♭-E♭-F-G-A♭-B♭-C), etc., whereas the section clearly means the so-called "white-key" modes. The problem with "white-key" modes is that these days not all readers can be counted on to be familiar with the layout of a piano keyboard. Let me think about this, but in the meantime, someone else may come up with a more elegant solution.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the broader picture, I discovered that this section was also badly placed, just ahead of the discussion of Ancient Greek and medieval scales, as if it had something to do with them. I have accordingly moved this section to where it belonged (in the "Modern modal scales" section), and cleaned up the text in order to correct a large number of misused terms and ambiguously stated concepts (e.g., equating the minor-seventh interval with the dominant-seventh chord). How does it look now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right justified image?

Wouldn't it make more sense to either left justify or center the "Pitch constellations of the modern musical modes" image? The right justification looks weird to me -- Dougher (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think it looks odd because it is such a long image, and probably looks just as odd left justified. I've changed it to centered, which looks best to me. If other editors disagree, please feel free to change it back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A diagram showing all modes

I have made a diagram showing all of the standard modern modes, arranged by number of sharps/flats. It is on Wikimedia commons at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_modes_diagram.png

If you think it is useful then please feel free to use it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleedadswell (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Modes and improvisation

Under 4.5, Modern Use, it would be nice to have at least some mention of how modes are used to teach improvisation. This is certainly true in Jazz, and the Dorian and Mixolydian modes are also used quite commonly in Rock. When a blues harmonica player is told the songs in 'A' they're going to grab a 'D' harp. They call it the "cross-key" BobbyBoykin (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving of Music mode & this talk page

Were these moves discussed somewhere? --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a bold sensible move to me. Are there reasons it should not have been done? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing. As I explained in the edit summary, in my experience these moves are consistent with a policy which is commonly adopted in Wikipedia (not only in music, by the way). This policy or guideline is most likely described somewhere in WP:MOS, but even if it were not, it makes perfectly sense to adopt it, when possible, because the most important word in the title (in this case the word "Mode") is the first word. Examples:

• Mode (music)
• Mode (statistics)
• Mode (literature)

• Interval (music)
• Interval (mathematics)
• Interval (time)

• Degree (music)
• Degree (freemasonry)
• Degree (angle)
• Degree (temperature)
• Degree (deodorant)

• Transposition (music)
• Transposition (mathematics)
• Transposition (logic)
• Transposition (law)
• Transposition (chess)
• Transposition (telecommunications)

However, as you probably know the old title Musical mode still exists and redirects here.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The move should nevertheless have been discussed first, and there will now be many dozens, perhaps hundreds of redirects to correct in articles from Tonality to Olivier Messiaen. That said, I agree with your reasoning. This move seems long overdue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When you move an article, you are supposed to check only for "double redirects" (i.e. pages which are redirected to the old page Musical mode, which in turn redirects to this article) or broken redirects. Do not worry about them. They have already been corrected. There are BOTs (one of them is called User:Xqbot) which automatically corrected them yesterday before I could do it myself, and even before this discussion was started by Tim Sabin.

The hundreds of direct links from articles such as Diatonic scale to the old page Musical mode will still work correctly (with a very short delay) because the old page redirects here, and I guess they are not a problem for MediaWiki, as I was not asked to "fix" them (see WP:MOVE). Paolo.dL (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me also say that I was not supposed to discuss these moves before doing them. The reference to WP:BOLD is appropriate in this case (see previous comment by Just plain Bill). If I have good reasons to edit and I do it in good faith, providing a quite exhaustive edit summary, not only I can do it, but Wikipedia asks me to boldly do it. After that, and not before, a discussion can be started by someone else, and in this case I am always willing to participate actively and respectfully. I sometimes start a time-consuming discussion before editing, but in this case I felt it would have been a waste of time. The reason why Wikepedia does not ask editors to discuss their edits a priori is because most people would not edit if it were so difficult to edit. That's how Wikipedia works and the reason why it grows so fast and so healthy. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the WP:BOLD page, and it says "Be Bold" only applies to page edits, not moves. I agree that these pages should have been moved for consistency's sake, but disagree with the way you went about it. My initial question was because I would expect a discussion before moving. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article is just a series of edits. Important edits, but edits. You can think of it as an edit to the article title, together with the creation of a redirection from the old to the new title. I did it with a sound reason, very easy to grasp by everybody and well explained in my edit summary, which even contained three internal links as examples. And since everybody, including you, seem to agree about the need to do it, I think that a previous discussion would have been only a waste of time, definitely against the spirit of WP:BOLD. I receive your suggestions respectfully, but I think that I acted correctly. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Musical scale, a case in which a discussion before moving was in my opinion necessary, because the topic was previously discussed without reaching consensus. And hence I posted there a comment before editing, and I will not move unless consensus is reached. You might help. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern names vs. Ancient Greek names

Ionian = Lydian (Ancient Greek name)

Dorian = Phrygian (Ancient Greek name)

Phrygian = Dorian (Ancient Greek name)

Lydian = Sintolydian (Ancient Greek name)

Mixolydian = Ionian (Ancient Greek name)

Aeolian = Aeolian (Ancient Greek name)

Locrian = Mixolydian (Ancient Greek name) says Anthony Ashton ("Harmonograph: A Visual Guide to the Mathematics of Music"). Böri (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some point to all this? These equivalents could only apply to the diatonic genus of the ancient Greek harmoniai, of course (along with several further qualifications), but are they inaccurately represented in the article at present, or what?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The modern Ionian mode was in fact "the Lydian mode" in Ancient Greece. I wanted to say this. Böri (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, this is true only of the diatonic genus of the scale used in the Lydian harmonia. Does this affect the present article at all? This is, after all, what talk pages like this are for—not for a general discussion of a subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do 'modern' modes come from?

This is a very confusing subject, and the article doesn't entirely clear up the confusion. It appears that there are three different 'systems' of modes - Greek, Church (medieval and later), and Modern - which use a set of overlapping terminology derived from Greek (Dorian, etc) but apply it to different things. It is understandable that the medieval composers and writers got in a muddle over the Greek usage, because they had very little info to go on, but it is not clear why the 'Modern' system is different from both Greek and Church systems. When did the Modern system come into common use, and why?86.179.214.155 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at the current version of the article, because I have an uneasy feeling that the answer actually is found in one of the subsidiary articles, such as Lydian mode. The short answer is that the connection between the Greek harmoniai and the medieval modes is more tenuous than you appear to believe, and the connection between medieval and modern modes is fairly straightforward. The "modern system" is actually that of Common Practice Tonality, and "modal" usage within that context begins to establish itself as a separate idea during the 18th century. The chief difference from medieval practice is a more rigid adherence to the diatonic notes of the scale. For example, in the medieval system, there is no practical difference between the Lydian scale and what we call the major scale, or between the Dorian and what we call the minor scale. In order to differentiate "modal flavor" from the chromatic flexibility of the upper half of the minor scale, for example, it became necessary to insist on always using the minor-seventh scale degree, especially in ascent to the tonic, and the sixth degree had to be always major to identify Dorian, and always minor to identify Aeolian. No such practice existed up to the 16th century, and indeed it was only with Glareanus in the mid-16th century that a theoretical difference was made between Dorian and Aeolian on the one hand, and Lydian and Ionian on the other. I shall see what I can do to clear this up (using reliable sources, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful. I came to the article because I've been reading the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory and was trying to make sense of this bewildering subject! Just a couple of points that occur to me. First, the emphasis in music theory and pedagogy probably shifted from vocal (choral)to keyboard applications between 1650 and 1800, and on the keyboard the 'modern' interpretation of modes is very easy to explain. Second, and related to the first, the general adoption of tempered scales (whether equal temperament or some other 'well-tempered' system) must have had some impact on how people interpreted modes.86.143.237.7 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would put that shift about a century earlier but, yes, it is true that "On 31 December 1600 all the Renaissance composers died". They were all singers, of course, and they were probably assassinated by the gang of violinists and keyboardists who took over composition in the Baroque. I'm not sure how much easier this makes the explanation of the modes, but it may very well have had some effect on the way in which they are explained. The "modern interpretation", on the other hand (as it is construed in the present article), does not really emerge until the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, when theorist found themselves explaining the efforts of historicist composers like Bruckner, who began attempting to evoke the dim and distant musical past in a way similar to the literary efforts of Walter Scott at around the same point in history. As for the tempering of scales, I do not really see what importance this has, unless of course you are a devotee of the chant performance style cultivated by Ensemble Organum, which includes ornamentation that slides back and forth between scale pitches, notes landing squarely between B-natural and B-flat, etc. If you are having a difficult time coming to terms with what the Cambridge History has got to say on the subject, I should probably steer you toward what is generally regarded as the last word on the subject of modes, which is Harold Powers's essay in the New Grove, cited in this article. It is a daunting article, probably the longest non-biographical article in New Grove, and not at all easy to grasp on first reading but, in the end, will set straight most if not all of the misapprehensions about the history of modal theory. Rockstro's article in the original Grove (also cited here) will put the icing in the cake, in that it includes a huge amount of material on the 19th-century point of view that has been avoided by Powers, probably on grounds that chant theory after 1600 is not particularly relevant. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the use of modes in jazz or by composers like Shostakovich or Glass.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

intervals

"an ordered series of intervals that, with the key or tonic (first tone), defines that scale's intervals, or steps" how can intervals define intervals? isn't that circular?

It certainly is! Clearly, someone typoed "interval" for "pitch" or "note" in one of the two places. I have decided it must be the earlier place, and fixed the passage accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Major and minor

Why are the modes other than ionian and aeolian not used anymore? Is there something bad about them? Have people develop theories of harmonies similar to ionian and aeolian for those modes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that no one answered Money is tight's question. Apparently he didn't find the answer in the article and wanted some help. That also indicates that this article is a place where people come for answers to this kind of questions. In any case I think his assumption that what happened was that the other modes were abandoned and only two were left and that's all it took for the tonal major-minor system to come into existence should have been corrected. Contact Basemetal here 08:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, also. Somehow I missed this question last September, or I might have responded to it then. However, I have just read through this article and cannot find any statement in it that implies this at all. If anything, it seems to say quite the opposite. In the first main section, titled "Modes and scales", the second paragraph states that, by the early 19th century, "mode" came to refer to something "outside of the major/minor system that could be used to evoke religious feelings or to suggest folk-music idioms". Surely this implies that modal writing continued in use for these purposes through at least 1850. This might be expanded a bit to include something about modal usage in the later 19th century (perhaps citing examples from Brahms or Bruckner, or even mentioning the Cecilian Movement), as well as a geneal mention of modal practice in the 20th century. This would serve as an introduction to the more detailed discussion toward the end of the article in a fairly long section describing "The modern modes" (the word "modern" should probably be specified as referring to usage from the 17th century or so down to the present time). This all sounds as if Money is tight had heard this rumor somewhere else and, upon reading this article, could not find confirmation of it. Despite this, he formulated the question as if this false assumption acquired at some unspecified place were true. If there is a reliable source for such a wrong-headed view, then I suppose it might be added here, in order that further sourced material explaining why it is wrong might be added. (To make such a defense now, when no such question has been raised, seems pointless.) The other half of the question, however (are there theories of harmonies specific to modes?) is only partially addressed in the present form of this article. The currently proposed merger back into this article of the once-split-away Properties of musical modes might help to answer this question, except that as it stands that article actually has less in it than this one already has got.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you think I was implying Money's tight got his wrong assumptions from this article? If I did, it was wholly unintentional. Who knows where he might have gotten them? You do find stuff like "In the Baroque period of music, all modes except the Ionian and Aeolian were discarded. These were then renamed the major and minor scale." (verbatim from this Web page) floating around. Contact Basemetal here 16:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I left the impression that anyone other than Money is tight suggested this idea might have come from this article. Because the question was posted here, it is logical to assume that the question is directed at something said in the article itself. In the present instance it is particularly odd because, as I said, the article seems to make it perfectly clear (complete with some citations from reliable sources) that this is not the case at all. There may be sources out there somewhere that are full of such misinformation (I have actually seen books with titles beginning "The Idiot's Guide to …" and have often wondered why anyone would want to be guided by an idiot) and, if they are receiving sufficient attention and harm is therefore being caused, then they ought to be brought into the discussion here. However, until such cases are actually pointed out, it seems best to regard this as gossip picked up on the playground from jokers luring the gullible with tall tales ("The earth really is flat, you know—just look at it!").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-merger Merger proposal

Back in 2005 a chunk was taken out of this article to make Properties of musical modes. I don't find that article particularly useful. I propose to merge it back here and make it a redirect. Objections? Contact Basemetal here 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be objections I'll bring back here whatever is in the other article, and there is very little that's there that's not already here. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Contact Basemetal here 09:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Since in section Mode_(music)#Summary there's a table of the modes transposed to C and their signatures, which I did not insert there, I thought it made sense to explain how modal signatures are arrived at. But I've hanged around this place long enough to just know someone is bound to get up and loudly protest that "Wikipedia is not a handbook, an instruction manual, a guidebook, a textbook, a how-to book, a compendium, a recipe book, a collection of mathematical formulas, a travel book, a FAQ, a tourist guide, a list of hotels or restaurants in Paris, etc.". Of course the information that is presented in my "recipe" could be presented in a totally factual way, with not a shadow of a hint that you're explaining to anyone how to do something. At the cost, I'd say, of being more pedantic, unreadable and silly looking. But let's just wait and see what happens. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Relative?

Is it OK to use the term "relative" for modes (modal scales, transposed modes, with the same signature) as in "The relative major of F dorian is E♭ major" and vice versa? Contact Basemetal here 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have heard this done; I cannot recall seeing it in print, but I wouldn't be surprised. Personally, I would avoid confusing "major" and "minor" with mode names, or you might end up saying foolish things like "the relative major of E♭ Ionian is E♭". More seriously, is the "relative minor" of F Dorian C or F, since the minor scale can use either the Dorian and Aeolian sixth scale degree? There should be no confusion in saying "the relative Mixolydian of C♯ Dorian is F♯".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Modes transposed to a common tonic of A

I believe it may be useful to show a table of the modes transposed to a common tonic of A, alongside the one given for the tonic of C - this will make the "minor modes" more transparent. 46.117.77.204 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How would that be more transparent than the current table with C as the common tonic? When your eye runs down the "E" column, there is a point where this turns to E♭. In a table with a common tonic of A, it would be a matter of C♯ turning to C♮. I fail to see the advantage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mode as a general term

I reworked this section, because the referred essay of Harold Powers does either not get to the point or the quoting reader did not see the wood before the trees. The synthesis is indeed long before Powers, but we do not have Greek references preceding the Hagiopolites treatise. The earliest theoretical source might be al-Kindi who documented an interest for the Greek octoechos for 8th-century Baghdad. The octoechos reform was already done by the end of the 7th century, although it was a controversial issue among Byzantine churchmen. We know about a Carolingian interest, but the theory which reflected the synthesis, was a century later. Platonykiss (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

COI?

Anonymous User:93.76.27.53 (an IP address that I observe is in Kiev, Ukraine) has now three times removed a citation to a standard textbook by the late Yuri Kholopov. With the most recent reversion, a serious charge of a financial conflict of interest was made in the edit summary: "Just look who added this link (not quite appropriate) and read the paragraph WP:FCOI)". I have provisionally removed the entire paragraph, and invite User:93.76.27.53 to explain further. As I said in my own edit summary, I have no idea who it was who added this reference (not a "link"), and cannot fathom how anyone could have a financial interest that would be in conflict with adding it. For clarity, the contentious source is/was: Kholopov, Yuri (2003). Гармония. Теоретический курс. 2nd ed. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Lan'. ISBN 5-8114-0516-2 (English: Harmony. A Theoretical Course). The subject of the contested paragraph is the relationship between Carolingian chant theory and that of Byzantine and Znamenny chant. Because my only direct contact with Prof Kholopov was attending a brilliant presentation on the subject of Znamenny chant which he made at a session of the American Musicological Society in Phoenix some years ago, I would be astonished if the reliability of this source could possibly be in question. Since User:Michael Bednarek has also recently reverted 93.76.27.53's deletion of this reference, I also invite his input to this discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• My revert was purely technical. The citation was attached to a claim related to Znamenny chant; removing the citation with the edit summary, "Reference (Kholopov 2003, 192) moved to the article 'Znamenny chant', where it is more relevant." where 93.76.28.14 had it just added, shows unfamiliarity with Wikipedia citation rules. Same for 93.76.27.219's "Reference to the article 'Znamenny chant' there is more than enough." The reference was added by User:Olorulus on 11 September 2014 in 2 edits at 10:40 and 10:45. That user, Sergey Lebedev, states that he wrote his thesis under Kholopov. Even so, I can't fathom either how FCOI can arise. Anyway, if the paragraph "Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists … Russian Znamenny chant as well." (now removed) is of value in this arrticle, then this source ought to be included. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would not be amiss, on your part, to explain why page 192 of the source, which is necessary, as you believe, is really relevant, and not a brazen advertisement with calculation that here they don't read in Russian. --93.76.26.42 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether that paragraph is necessary or even relevant, and I didn't write that. If it is, the Kholopov citation, or any other suitable source, should be used. You still seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's requirement for citations. A source provided in Znamenny chant is not sufficient to support a related statement in Mode (music). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is quite clear that you don't know what is written on page 192, reference to which you rashly returned to the paragraph where it no looks as evidence of the veracity of the foregoing, but as brazen advertising, trampling the basics of community. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If the citation supports the text about eight modes in Znamenny chant, where you inserted it, it is also appropriate to use that source here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your kids logic is not added sustainability to your a faltering reputation. --93.76.29.110 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Olorulus wrote (2012 [1] English translation): Has laid out scan (PDF) the second edition of the seminal book (textbook) Yu. N. Kholopov "Harmony. Theoretical course." For convenience, add bookmarks to PDF on the main sections of the book.

In the near future I plan to do reference system for this book (Index nominum, Index rerum, Index notarum), which is sorely lacking.

I ask all noticed typographical and factual errors in the book YuNH notify me at the address indicated on the errata page. These comments will necessarily be taken into account when re-release of the book. --93.76.26.131 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with writers adding their own scholarly works as sources to Wikipedia articles – happens all the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is done all the time. Further, while much has now been cleared up about who was responsible for adding this particular citation, nothing said so far supports the claim that Olorulus=Sergey Lebedev has a financial motive in citing his mentor's book, let alone how FCOI can possibly apply, since it plainly states that "a close financial relationship with a topic" is a possible reason for not writing articles about that topic—it says nothing at all about citing sources. How does Olorulus stand to benefit financially from the concept of musical modes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is not a scholarly work but re-release of the textbook, which is not distributed for free, and is massively sold by the publisher. This is a commercial activity, which in dire need of advertising. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this give Olorulus a financial interest in the subject "Mode (music)"? It is neither a copyrighted nor a patented concept.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Now — no way. You removed from the article a possibility to advertise the Kholopov's textbook (not indisputably valuable). --93.76.28.63 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly ("Now — no way"), you are withdrawing your allegation of FCOI. There has never been any issue raised about advertising anything at all, least of all Kholopv's textbook, which was cited as a source. I agree that nothing is indisputably valuable—this is a truism—but this text clearly satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. Do you have some further point to make, or shall we just restore the paragraph on the relationship of the Carolingian system and Znamenny chant, supported by the citation to Kholopov's text, as originally added by Olorulus?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. If you simply quote here a fragment of the specified in Kholopov's textbook page 192, where is written about the said relationship, the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered. --93.76.27.192 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If a citation in a reputable source supports the text, it should not be removed. I suspect that Grove, MGG, and many other publications gained some Wikipedia readers/editors as customers because they are used for references here. I subscribed for a time to The New Yorker because of Alex Ross's articles quoted here, and to the The New York Times for Anthony Tommasini and others. So what? They're still quotable, reputable, reliable sources. I suggest you stop your cruisade and drop the stick. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Besides, what does quoting a relevant passage from the page (e.g., Древнерусские гласы – одна из великих ладовых систем, сравнимая по важности с другими великими ладовыми массивами – древнегреческой и западной грегорианской) have to do with the claim of financial interest?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not kidding? You really argue that the passage Old Russian voices — one of the great modal systems, comparable in importance to other great modal arrays — Greek and Western Gregorian may be valid sourse of all this:: Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists did not simply use the same modes described in the Hagiopolites, they invented an own eight mode system which was used to structure the melodic memory of plainchant, since cantors were asked to learn the Roman repertoire. The Byzantine hymns were imported to Slavic chant traditions, when the monastic chant books (sticherarion, heirmologion) were translated in Ohrid and Novgorod. The translation of echos (ἦχος) was glas (гласъ "voice"). Hence, a system of eight glas can be found in later Russian Znamenny chant as well.? --93.76.29.10 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

All you asked for was a random quote or two "about the said relationship" in order that "the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered". This makes absolutely no sense to me at all (perhaps we have a language-barrier problem here—my Russian is almost non-existent, and I have no Ukrainian at all) , but I am trying to fulfill your requirements. The issue is not (though perhaps it should be) whether or not the cited passage verifies everything in the paragraph (it verifies some things, but not others). The issue is whether WP:FCOI is being violated here. I see no grounds at all to support this charge against User:Olorulus.

If you re-release in English The Great Textbook by your Genious Teacher, will be much easier for you to push its advertising in articles of this Wikipedia part. --93.76.29.227 (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC) It seemed that a paragraph was signed User Olorulus. --93.76.29.95 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the cited source as not supporting either the entire paragraph or specific points within it, then the correct procedure is either to mark the citation with a {{failed verification}} template, or to mark specific points not addressed in it with {{citation needed}}, not by making wild and unsupportable accusations against another editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems wild your with Michael Bednarek unsupportable belief that for paragraph (now removed) was extremely needful the reference to page where is written: «what the modes in the native ancient Russian melodies, we don't know; it's not known how many them, how they should be called, what their indications; we do not know if the voices and the modes are identical or not (Template:Lang-ru)». Ones who understand the matter of the financial interests will not exclude from those annoying advertising the intended for re-releasing textbook. --93.76.27.18 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cantus firmus as reference

Reference to cantus firmus is misleading. Any pre-existing melody could give (and actually gave) an impetus to polyphonic elaboration, like dozens of 'L'homme armé' (Armed man) settings, 'Pour quoy me bat mes maris' (Why does my husband beat me), 'Fortuna desperata' or other popular or paraliturgical songs, or hexachordal cantus firmi etc., which are not related to the described (mainly Carolingian) concept of mode Olorulus (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See ББК 85.314 я73 Х801 (Пляскина, Е. В. 2010) с.11: «сantus firmus <...> was used <.,.> creating intonational and modal unity (Russian: сantus firmus <...> использовался <...> создавая интонационное и ладовое единство)» --93.76.27.129 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of a "see also" section is to direct the readers' attention to other (English) Wikipedia articles that include pertinent discussion related to the subject. As far as I can tell, ББК 85.314 я73 Х801 is not an English Wikipedia article. If in fact it contains important information missing from the "cantus firmus" article, then it should be added there. If in turn that information sheds important light on the subject of musical modes beyond what is discussed here, then the "see also" link would be valid.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Difference between Byzantine and Carolingian octoechos

I wonder, why only the Carolingian concept is referred here?

The comparison between Greek and Latin reception is not simply the system of how to order the eight church tones, but also two different modal concepts. The Latin system really established a system of seven octaves (eight, if you regard the species D—d from two different angles, a plagal D—G—d and an authentic D—a—d aspect), since the finales of authentic and plagal modes are the same within each pair.

The difference is that the Byzantine octoechos order the finales of each kyrios-plagios pair in pentachords, so that there are in fact just four octaves which do establish the melodic ambitus: C—c (tetartos), D—d (protos), E—e (devteros), and F—f (tritos). The difference is just, if the finalis is on the bottom (plagios) or in the middle (kyrios) of the octave.

In fact, Powers never commented on the tetraphonic construction of the Byzantine tone system which belongs to a tone system different from Great Perfect System. We only find the seven octaves, if we try to establish an octave (ascending or descending) on each of the eight finales, but this is the level of melos.

Any suggestions who did ever treat this problem? I do only know the compilator of alia musica who was the only one to comment on it:

For the full octave (gr. diapason) another tone might be added, which is called ἐμμελῆς: "according to the melos".

In practice, this means that the descending octave from the finalis of echos devteros is b—B and not augmented (b—B flat) like in the lower tritos register (B flat—b flat), and the melos of tritos is within F—f, despite that there is an f sharp in the higher tetartos register (G—g). --Platonykiss (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename this page from "Mode (music)" to "Mode (music theory)"?

Let me know what you think.

104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why bother? It only makes the disambiguator more cumbersome. It would only make sense if there was a difference between "Mode (music)" and "Mode (music theory)" which, as far as I can see, there isn't.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Incomprehensibility

Although I have studied music theory and can play music, I must say I find large parts of this article incomprehensible, in particular the first section "Mode as a general concept". This general introduction to the subject needs to be rewritten by someone who (a) knows how to write clear English and (b) knows how to explain things in simple terms to the layman. The first sentence of that paragraph in particular, is just gobbledegook: "Regarding the concept of mode as applied to pitch relationships generally, Harold S. Powers proposed mode as a general term but limited for melody types, which were based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species called tonos (τόνος) or harmonia (ἁρμονία), with "most of the area between ... being in the domain of mode" (Powers 2001, §I,3)." To someone who has spent three years studying musical theory and history at university, this may be as clear as crystal, but to the layman or laywoman for whom Wikipedia is supposed to be being written, it makes no sense at all. Though the reader may click on melody types and read what it says there, it doesn't help at all, since it is equally obscure. Let us have the introduction rewritten in much simpler terms, with beginners in mind, not people who are already advanced in the subject. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to this, Kanjuzi. If it is any comfort to you, I have spent considerably more than three years studying music theory and history at university, and I can make no more sense of that sentence than you can. Worried that I might have accidentally been responsible for the gobbledy-gook (since I have edited this article sporadically for some years now), I checked the edit history, where I discovered to my relief that I was not, and that, up until this edit on 31 October 2015, the passage in question read: "Regarding the concept of mode as applied to pitch relationships generally, Harold S. Powers proposed mode as a general term for melody types which were based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species called tonos (τόνος) or harmonia (ἁρμονία) with 'most of the area between ... being in the domain of mode'". Hampered as I am by all those years sitting in music theory classes, this is very nearly comprehensible to me—certainly it makes better sense than the revision—but I would like to know whether you think reverting to that earlier version be a move in the right direction and, if so, how much further in that direction do we still need to go?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that earlier version is certainly better; but I think you need to go much further in simplification, in view of the fact that this is the introduction to the subject. For example, who was Harold Powers, and why are his views worth quoting? When he says "most of the area between", the reader asks "between what two things?" What does "based on the modal interpretation of ancient Greek octave species" mean? How do you "interpret" an octave species, and what does it mean to interpret one "modally" – notice that we are trying to define what the word "mode" means, and we are doing so by using the word itself in the definition! It doesn't mean anything to me. Also I think a layman would say "types of musical scale" rather than "octave species". (I had never heard of the latter term before.) We seem here to have dropped in halfway through a music theory class where the views of Harold Powers are being discussed, but the part which explained the earlier or traditional definition, which Powers is modifying, is missing. Another difficulty with the sentence is that "species" is here plural, but τόνος and ἁρμονία which supposedly translate it are singular; it should say τόνοι and ἁρμονίαι, but really these terms are not necessary here; they should be given later when you come to discuss what "mode" means when applied to ancient Greek music. What is needed here, before giving Powers' definition or refinement of the definition, is to explain in simple terms, as it were for an intelligent teenager who has studied the piano or another instrument, what the usual meaning of "mode" is. – Another point is that the meaning of symbols not usual in traditional music, such as the double flat or backwards-facing flat, should be explained both here and in the article on Octave species. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC) – Here is an example of simple language which most people can understand (from an article on Music in the Oxford Classical Dictionary): "The most striking difference between the music of the Greeks and that to which western Europeans are accustomed is that the ancient art made use of a large number of scales or modes, which, in the view of most authorities, differed from each other in the sequence of the intervals composing them and (probably) in tonality. It was to these modes that the Greeks attributed the varying ethical effects of music...." You'll see that the writer doesn't use any difficult technical terms, except perhaps for "tonality", whose meaning is not clear to me. This is the sort of level of language we should be aiming for, I think. It is clear from this quotation that the writer uses the word "mode" simply to mean one of the various scales used in Greek music. He goes on to explain that Greek music differed from both Gregorian plainchant and modern music by using intervals that were not equal, unlike the semitones on a piano, and the intervals were sometimes as narrow as a quarter tone. All this is easy for a school student to understand. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. I can see that at some point an edit must have been made, removing some essential matter from the Powers quotation, which in full reads: "mode can be defined as either a ‘particularized scale’ or a ‘generalized tune’, or both, depending on the particular musical and cultural context. If one thinks of scale and tune as representing the poles of a continuum of melodic predetermination, then most of the area between can be designated one way or another as being in the domain of mode." Even this might not be as clear as one might like, but at least it does explain what those things are between which the "domain of mode" falls. It would not occur to me to have to explain who Harold Powers was, and there is of course a link to his biographical article, but I can see that some clarificationof his status might be in order here. One problem I see with starting from the Oxford Classical Dictionary definition is that it will have to be progressively undone as the discussion proceeds, since almost everything in it is at least a distortion of what Powers has to say, if not a direct contrdition. The chief problem is that the Greeks did not have "modes", but rather a group of concepts describing pitch relationships, which together may (or may not) add up to the ideas that later coalesced under the term. I admit that this is a difficult place to start an article like this, but it is equally difficult to tell the reader that x, y, andz are the basic concepts, only then to explain in turn why each of these concepts are wrong. As for the term tonality, you might like to have a look at the talk page for the article on that subject, where you will see that this has been a morass of disussion for several years now, with little forward progress. The problem seems to be that "everyone knows" what the word means, and they use it as if that were true, whereas in fact there are at least ten different senses of the word, some of which differ significantly from one another. Perhaps the solution here would be to find which of those senses is the one intended, and then substitute the description of that sense for the word "tonality".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Kanjuzi and others have made the clear and valid point here. As a studied musician who has made a life's work of it for the last 30+ years I found the bulk of this article to be incoherent and almost useless as a modern definition. My familiarity of Powers actually left me even more confused as to why so much of the article was based on his references. Surely there is a place in the article for archaic Greek music, the tempered scale, and Powers. But if the goal here is consistency, it is my opinion that the article would better serve the general community if it followed the style of other Wikipedia articles and began with a simple definition of the basic 7 modes as they exist today and are studied throughout the world (including Greece and India) and the bulk of the current article was boiled down to the coherent bits and included as footnotes, historical material, and further study reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotzauerbus (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mode (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415140501/http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm11/ordoulidis_the_greek_popular_modes.pdf to http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm11/ordoulidis_the_greek_popular_modes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor second vs. diminished second

Given that both major (Ionian) and minor (Aeolian) have the same interval for a second – two steps on the 12-step scale – I propose that the second column of the table of Section 5.2 "Summary" have labels "perfect" (instead of "major", for modes including major and minor) and "diminished" instead of "minor" (for "Phrygian" and "Locrian"). The current labels are more confusing because the minor key has a major second. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since these interval names have been standard for more than a thousand years, I think you are going to find it an uphill battle to change them now. In any case, this page is not the place to start. You may wish first to read the article Interval (music).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer; I am learning that I am in this over my head. I have learned that only unisons, fourths, fifths, and octaves can be perfect, and that even though a second is the same in major and minor keys, the shared value is not considered something perfect that can be diminished. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the fault of the fact that we have adopted to considering the Aeolian mode the natural minor scale. Just as the article says, the Phrygian mode has a minor second. Georgia guy (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It actually makes a good deal of sense to consider the second degree to be variable in the minor scale, but surely the main form of the scale must allow for a perfect triad on the fifth degree and have a natural (not Neapolitan) supertonic. It would also make more sense to follow the French practice of regarding the harmonic minor as the basic form of the scale (because the dominant needs a leading tone to have its force), but sadly this isn't traditional among English-speaking theorists. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, you can consider the reason for the names to be as such to be that both the major and minor scales contain seconds of two sizes (C–D is a major second, while E–F is a minor second). These seconds can be aurally identified as having the same meaning (a single step) despite this size, in about the same way as how we accept the asymmetry of triads containing one major and one minor third; they are both thirds. (This also creates a reasonable symmetry with their inversions, the major and minor sixths and sevenths.) To the contrary, the perfect fifth becomes much more dissonant if chromatically altered, and we cannot really identify the diminished and perfect fifths as having the same function under common-practice tonality. (Since under common-practice harmony the perfect fourth is a dissonance, I would be more in favour of reviving Mozart's nomenclature: E–A "minor fourth", F–B "major fourth", A–E "true fifth", B–F "false fifth". But this is likewise not going to happen.) Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

But the major scale also has fifths of two sizes; perfect and diminished. It also has two sizes of fourths; perfect and augmented. Only the unison and octave have only one size. Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said immediately above, the contexts in which the diminished and perfect fifths can be semi-identified as having the same function are significantly fewer than the many in which that can be done to the major and minor seconds and thirds. The main place where that is possible is in a sequence like the circle of fifths, and still that diminished fifth cannot be the last step in the sequence. So a greater distinction is warranted. Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The simplest way to think of interval qualities is:

Perfect intervals are the intervals based on the tonic and dominant of a major scale. The unison and octave have the tonic twice. The fifth is tonic to dominant; the fourth is dominant to (upper) tonic.

Major intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the major scale when the lower note is the tonic. C-D, C-E, C-A, and C-B are all major intervals.

Minor intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the major scale when the upper note is the tonic. B-C, A-C, E-C, and D-C are all minor intervals.

An augmented interval is a chromatic semitone higher than any interval that occurs in the major scale when the lower note is the tonic; that is, perfect or major.

A diminished interval is a chromatic semitone lower than any interval that occurs in the major scale when the upper note is the tonic; that is, perfect or minor.

Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that works and makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That is great as a mnemonic. Is it in Wikipedia somewhere? It sill bothers me that perfect is only primes, fourths, fifths, and octaves but not seconds, which also match on the major and minor scales – but that is what it is. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just see my post above. All intervals in the major scale where the lower note is the tonic are perfect or major. All intervals in the major scale where the upper note is the tonic are perfect or minor. Georgia guy (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My confusion arises because the minor intervals are Phrygian, but the minor mode is Aeolian. In other words, your rule can be restated with Phrygian: Minor intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the Phrygian scale when the lower note is the tonic. E-F, E-G, E-C, and E-D are all minor intervals. Major intervals are the intervals that are not perfect that occur in the Phrygian scale when the upper note is the tonic. D-E, C-E, G-E, and F-E are all major intervals. If the common minor mode were Phrygian then all of this would shake down more logically for me. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article with the hope that others will not be confused about the distinction between minor mode and minor intervals. If you find the edit lacking, please consider fixing it rather than reverting it, so that people like me have a chance at seeing this distinction. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that Sparafucil has reverted you; while I agree that fixing it would have been better, I think he raises an important point that you're implicitly assuming that the intervals start from the tonic. It isn't necessarily so: E–G is in the C major scale, between the 3rd and 5th degrees, but it's a minor 3rd, so saying that the major scale only contains major and perfect intervals is confusing if it's not explicitly stated that only intervals starting at the tonic are considered. Perhaps we could discuss further how to clarify this?

Anyway, you might be interested to know that the relationship you've pointed out occurs because the Phrygian mode is the inversion of the Ionian mode: that is, if you take the tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone sequence of Ionian, but go down instead of up (tone down, tone down, semitone down, and so on), you get Phrygian (going down instead of up). The result follows, since the inversion of a major interval is a minor interval and vice versa. The other modes also come in inversion pairs: Lydian–Locrian, Ionian–Phrygian, Mixolydian–Aeolian, and Dorian remains the same when inverted.

Perhaps you might also be interested to note that the reason why the minor mode isn't Phrygian is because to have a perfect cadence (V–I) and allow a sense of closure to the piece under tonality, you need a perfect triad on the 5th degree, and hence a perfect fifth from the 5th to the 2nd degree. Furthermore you also need the 7th degree to be a semitone below the 8th, like in the major scale, to have a real perfect cadence with a leading note; while considering Aeolian to be the natural form of the minor scale simplifies some things at first, it gets easier to explain most common-practice Western music if we consider the minor mode to have a major 7th by default (this is the harmonic minor scale, e.g. A–B–C–D–E–F–G♯–A). Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If either Sparafucil or Double sharp would be so kind as to modify the article with a better version of the edit that I tried to make, that could save quite a bit of my blundering around trying to incorporate the subtleties that probably I still don't fully understand. I am trying to make the edit in the first place because I think it is valuable to people like me who are trying to get a grasp on the relationship between major and minor in the distinct contexts of modes and intervals. If either of you or some other expert could explain that in the article, to people like me, then that would be much appreciated. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that you might be looking in the wrong place for this information; modes tend to be taught somewhat after the concept of intervals is well-understood, and so the article not unreasonably assumes that readers know about intervals already. There is an explanation of what "major" and "minor" mean for intervals at Interval (music)#Major and minor, where it ought to be. Actually I think the way that section looks at things is better, only considering the major scale as the basic diatonic scale. Could you take a look at it and see if it helps? Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your confusion, with major/minor variously referring to intervals and the thirds of triads (otherwise described by their augmented/diminished fifth degrees). But let's have some consideration for the scope of an article on mode: "Major mode" is used for the tonal relationships of the major key as well as for the major scale (identical with the Ionian mode), while minor mode is a mixture as explained at minor scale and gypsy scale. Sparafucil (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in the context of this article, the diatonic modes are also grouped into three "major" modes (Ionian, Lydian, Mixolydian), three "minor" modes (Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian), and one "diminished" mode (Locrian). Each of the first three have a major third above the tonic, each of the next three have a minor third, and the last has a diminished fifth above the tonic. I hope this will help make Sparafucil's point a little clearer: it is the third scale degree alone (that is, the third of the tonic triad) in each case that determines "major" or "minor" scale properties, with the assumption that the fifth is perfect; when the fifth is diminished instead of perfect, the third will be minor, but it is no longer the factor that determines the mode quality. The other scale degrees (second, fourth, sixth, seventh) may vary, within the limits posed by the diatonic pattern.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jerome might know better than me whether there is precedent ( and a possible reference) for grouping Ionian with Mixolydian & Lydian without use of scare quotes around "major". The "context of this article" is exactly what is at issue ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I look at the table in Section 5.2 of this article and notice immediately that Aeolian (minor) mode is not all perfects and minor intervals (from the tonic upwards), but that Phrygian is. In contrast a single mode, Ionian, is both the major mode and has all perfects and major intervals (from the tonic upwards). Because we include this table in this article, I would like a sentence nearby to point out that this correspondence for minor is not as straightforward as for major, and then either explain it or point to somewhere like Interval (music)#Major and minor for an explanation. I worry that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to carry this out, but I think it would add value to this article. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this specific language to be added to Section 5.2. Please suggest improvements.

The intervals shown in the above table for Ionian (major) mode are all perfect or major. It is not the case that the intervals shown for Aeolian (minor) mode are all perfect or minor, though that is the case for Phrygian mode. See major and minor intervals for more information.

64.132.59.226 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not get any feedback on this proposed language so I am going for BOLD, revert, and discuss. Please try to edit the article entry rather than fully reverting. If you must revert, please be responsible and also give a detailed reason here. Reasons like "it would be better if ..." are more useful than "it is bad because ..." because the former gives a good direction to try, but the latter eliminates only one of many directions as undesirable. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I have tagged the material as seemingly pointless. If what you are trying to say is that the three modes designated as "major" ought to have nothing but major and perfect intervals in them (above the tonic) and, correspondingly, the three "minor" modes ought to have nothing but minor and perfect intervals in them, then this needs to be made plain to the innocent reader. As it stands, it sounds like gibberish. What is wrong with the explanation given, that it is the quality of the third scale degree alone (and, by extension, the quality of the tonic triad) that is the reason for this classification?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What's special about the third that makes it the most important interval when it comes to major/minor classification?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jerome Kohl, thank you for your comments. The point I am trying to make is that if one guessed that Ionian mode is used for major keys because all its intervals from tonic to above are major or perfect, the table would seem to confirm that guess. However, if you then guessed that Aeolian mode is used for minor keys because all its intervals from tonic to above are minor or perfect, the table would not back that up. The hope is that anyone thinking along those lines will now know to look to major and minor intervals for an understanding of what is going on. (I think all this would be useful for the article, because I found myself making these guesses and then wondering what went wrong.) If you can think of a better way to convey this, please edit! 64.132.59.226 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Georgia guy: You ask a very good question, which goes straight to the problem Special:Contributions/64.132.59.226 is struggling with. It is necessary to understand that the whole business of classifying modes in groups of "major-like" or "minor-like" is taking the perspective of the modern major-minor system and projecting it backward onto the older modal schema of the church modes. However, this is also filtered through a "modern" understanding of "the seven modes", which is not the same thing as the earlier concept. For one thing, the modern modes are what we could call "absolutely" diatonic, whereas the church modes admit of some flexibility on certain scale degrees. The modern Lydian mode, for example, consists strictly of seven notes in an ascending interval pattern of T-T-T-S-T-T-S (where T = whole tone and S= semitone), starting from the referential tonic note. In the church modes, however, the Lydian may have this pattern, but more often displays T-T-S-T-T-T-S, exactly what is called "Ionian mode" in the modern scheme. Similarly, the sixth scale degree in Dorian is strictly a major sixth above the tonic in the modern system, but may be either major or minor in the medieval Dorian mode. Further, the seventh degree in the modern Dorian is always a minor seventh above the tonic, but in the medieval schema it is often altered to a major seventh for cadential purposes. This is also the case with the Mixolydian mode, which must have the minor seventh in the modern system, but as often as not uses a major seventh historically.

What all this has to do with the question raised by Georgia Guy is that, in the modern major-minor system, the minor scale differs (that is, absolutely differs) from the major only by the third scale degree. A semitone above the tonic is regarded as a chromatic deviation in both major and minor, and major sixth and seventh scale degrees do not by themselves rule out the minor key (the so-called "melodic" and "harmonic" minor scales demonstrate this). As the article explains (somewhere), when the "old modes" were revived in the 19th century, it was necessary to treat them more strictly than they ever were in the 16th century or earlier, for the simple reason that the Lydian mode (for example) could not otherwise be differentiated from the major scale. Indeed, the reverse is also true: the modern major system routinely departs temporarily from the "strict" Ionian mode, in order to create local inflections toward the dominant (by raising the fourth scale degree) or toward the subdominant (by lowering the seventh degree), thus producing the temporary appearance of the Lydian and Mixolydian modes in a major-key context. More obviously, the minor key possesses both the major and minor sixth ("Dorian" and "Aeolian", respectively), leaving only the Phrygian and Locrian out of the picture. This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I think it is sufficient to make the point: the only stable element that differentiates the major key from the minor is the third scale degree.

Justifying Phrygian as a "minor-like" mode is also sometimes done by observing the positions of the two semitones in each scale. The highest pair of positions is between degrees 4–5 and 7-8 (modern Lydian), next-highest between 3-4 and 7-8 (Ionian), then 3-4 and 6-7 (Mixolydian), and so forth. The sequence ends with the Phrygian (semitones between 1-2 and 5-6) and, finally, Locrian (semitones between 1-2 and 4-5). It is claimed (and you may judge for yourself by comparing the sound examples) that this creates a continuum from "brightest" (Lydian) to "darkest" (Locrian), with a divide between the brightest three and darkest four modal scales. By this logic, Locrian is also a "minor-like" mode and, indeed, its third scale degree is a minor third above the tonic.

Now, how much of this do you reckon really belongs in the article? Some of it is already there, but perhaps not enough? I don't think it would be very difficult to find reliable sources for the material not already present.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing the whole paragraph about "all major/minor" from the article. Scales are called major minor based on their root triad, not any other notes in the scale. The observation is correct that the default major/minor (Ionian/Phrygian) scale has all major/minor or perfect intervals from the root. However this is not a recognised element in music theory. So it is very close to original; research. −Woodstone (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a very small point, perhaps, but Phrygian is not the default minor scale. This is just what has confused 64.132.59.226, who believes (quite correctly) that this should logically be the default, instead of Aeolian. Music theory, unfortunately, is very often not as logical as it might be. The "root" (that is, tonic) triad notion is valid, as far as it goes but, as I tried to make clear, it is not necessary to invoke triadic harmony to explain why the third scale degree is sufficient to differentiate these two broad (if somewhat sloppily conceived) categories. The triadic concept only really becomes essential if one cares to exclude the Locrian mode from the "minor-like" category. The only problem I can see with removing the "major/minor" groups of modes from this article is that it does come up quite often in the literature, especially in writing aimed at relative beginners. Deleting this discussion would avoid the difficulty of clearly explaining it, but at the expense of denying willing learners the answer to a question many of them are going to bring with them to this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I goofed up compressing my sentences too much. The I did understand the asymmetry in the naming. Default major Ionian is all major/perfect. Default ~minor Aeolian is not all minor/perfect, but instead Phrygian is. The only part I propose to remove is the one sentence (plus a reference) marked for doubtful relevance. −

Would that be the paragraph beginning "The intervals (above the respective tonics) shown in the above table for Ionian mode, ..."? This is the paragraph recently added by 64.132.59.226, meant to clarify the point he/she found confusing. That sentence does not have a reference, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I mean the paragraph "The intervals (above the respective tonics) shown ... is the case for Phrygian mode. See major and minor intervals for more information". With reference I meant the "See ..." part, not a valid WP reference. I do not see how this paragraph lessens any confusion, and it does not resonate with recognised music theory. −Woodstone (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Woodstone. Yes, I agree that it does not resonate with recognized music theory. That is something I didn't understand at first and I want the article to teach that to other readers. If you can make the wording more musically correct that would be great, but please do preserve it in some form that teaches what I needed to learn. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)