Great job! You have not only clearly explained the difference between modal and tonal music, but also incidentally gave a concise history of western music in just 2 minutes! Looking from a non-European’s perspective, the development of the Western music tradition in Europe is really fascinating. In a sense, it has explored and colonised more “space” from the kingdom of music than any other traditions.
Thank you Dahong! This approach seems to help my students differentiate modal from tonal, but it's a subtle difference for many. Thanks for your comments!
I thank you for your time taken to teach about this subject. Note; perhaps you need to take the gain up 12db to normalize with other videos on TH-cam. thanks again.
Indian classical music is very drone dependent , so I see a big parallel. The chordal addition and appreciation of harmony really transforms into a key and singing/playing songs.I love that. The shift from Classical to Folk Song. It is interesting also to see how tonal centring blurs into modality too.I noticed how the third note ( Phrygian, in a way) is quite common in Punjabi folk yet rare in Western song.Because a drone element somehow remains apparent. In songs this is as common in India as the Natural Minor ( and Harmonic Minor). Tonal centres of 3 and 6. Thank you for your clarity.
Yes yes yes! I'm in awe of Indian music... the rhythmic solfege alone is off-planet amazing. Absolutely. The use of drone has a powerful anchoring effect which can help westerners re-discover the wonders of oblique voice motion
This is such a great explanation. I've been tinkering around with jazz guitar lately, and when you search the internet for how to learn jazz, you tend to see the concept of modes dominating everything. However, even the people teaching it don't really seem to grasp how to use the concept to make good music. Frankly, a lot of it is unlistenable to me. I've had a hard time understanding what the big deal was about modes, and your explanation demystifies a lot of it.
Just a quick note to begin with, the whole mode idea comes from ancient Greece, medieval monks later took these concepts and adapted them (with mistakes) to what was the music practice at the time. It might be important to understand that when we speak about modal or tonal (I prefer another word, functional, but I'll get there) we're talking mostly about harmony. What differs between them is on how harmonies are working in the piece, if it's only because they sound good or if there is functional movement between harmonies, i.e. if the harmonies in the piece are driven by aspects of tension and resolution. Let's look at two examples: 1. Beethoven's 5th in C minor. After the two initial tadadadas, we're at the dominant chord G (or G7). We can feel it, it's now in a state of tension and needs to resolve to a state of rest, which will eventually happen at the end of the third tadadada that starts the following, softer, melodic line, over the tonic Cm. It's an example of functional harmony, in the *key* of C minor. 2. Now, take Scarborough Fair harmonization by Simon and Garfunkel. The harmonies are being put together because they sound good with the melody (believed to be from the 13th century). You can say its tonal center is A minor, and you can (and should) write it on a score with an Am key signature. However, this song has no key (in the functional sense), as we'll see. The Am key signature is used on the score only for reading convenience, and in the score you'd see one note being changed from the expected natural minor scale: the 6th. The 6th is raised (to F#), and you might suspect by this it's in the *mode* of A Dorian. Confirmation would be that there is no Dominant->Tonic functional resolution, i.e. there is no E7->Am which melodically would be spotted as a raised 7th (the leading tone G#) going to the tonic A. What we see instead is Em, implying melodically the subtonic note G moving to the tonic A, which is a nice movement, but not a resolution from a tension. So, it's not functional, but modal. Why I prefer the term "functional" over "tonal" should now be clear. Virtually all music has tones (notes). Furthermore, virtually all music has a tonal center. But not all music with a tonal center is functionally oriented. So "tonal" might be as meaningful as "atonal", a term that Schoenberg himself despised but that history confirmed. As long as we remember that it means "avoiding a tonal center" we should be ok.
Great explanation! Thanks! I believe some 70`s American Funk Music could be some examples of modern modal music. Not most of them, though. But some songs stays on the same chord the whole time. This structure is good for improvisation for rhythmic exploration.
Thanks Eric! Your solid understanding of music history is a rare thing these days :) Awesome! I've found that experimenting with 2 and 3-part voice writing can help free us from the stranglehold of 17th - 19th century harmonic conventions. By comparison, 3-voice writing seems fresh today and modern in a minimalistic sense...
Tonality is condition for modality. Modality is a concept of technique, tonality is the a musical condition of the sound. The term became important because of atonality and music based on other parameters beyond the tone.
Thanks for the explanation, I came here because of the causality of TH-cam algorithm and I found it very very interesting. I could be very interesting to hear a modern piece of music written purely on modal... or maybe compose one.
FINALLY, someone who goes back to the 9th and 10th centuries! You're the first one! I've been a fan of so-called "early music" for 40 years! Christ, you finally got out of that 80s chord/scale and chord/mode shit! THANK YOU!
Yeah, it's also funny when you talk to jazz cats about modes and they stare incomprehensively when you mention terms like compass, plagal vs authentic modes, hypodorian, finalis etc. But heck, Miles Davis apparently invented the modes.
Eric, going to second what so many others have said. I found this to be an excellent and very clear explanation of the difference between modal and tonal.
Thank you! It's very interesting to see where our musical constructs came from and how they are being adapted. I admit the older I get the more this history becomes of interest.
My modal concept is totally diferent. For example, CEFGA is a C ionian mode to me. Because. It"s based on triads that have C in them FAC. ACE CEG. That being said. I feel you can conceptualize musical paterns anyway you want. I think this was an awesome video thank you.
thank you for your video. I have a question. Would you consider any songs of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue to be modal? Because if i remember correctly some songs are structured by modes and some contain multiple different modes for different sections of the song.
Thanks! I would consider those tunes to be good examples of modern modal songs. For me, when the changes just groove for multiple bars, it gives the improviser a platform for using a particular mode. The changes don't progress to other changes in the sense that many standard chord changes do.
and yet there are chordal changes/progressions within one key to support a particular modal sound. the most basic and effective such a chordal progression is toggling between the home chord and another chord that contains the character tone of the mode relating to the home chord. The home chord is always written as I for Major and i for minor chord. Example : I and II chords with phrasing emphasis on the I will give lydian sound. If the emphasis is on I will give mixolydian sound when toggling with VII. The improvisation needs to be started and finished on the chordal tones of the home chord as well as targeting the character tone of the mode. For me, modal sound is everything. However, playing with only one mode over chord changes, let's say playing only minor chords in progression with only one scale eg. dorian scale, it has its own sound but it does not really provide a dorian atmosphere. It will work in its own way, some call this method parallel modes
Tonality is condition for modality. Modality is a concept of technique, tonality is the a musical condition of the sound. The term became important because of atonality and music based on other parameters beyond the tone.
Thanks Emanuel. I don't disagree with you. My application of these terms is to show modern music students the difference between tonal music (most music today) that almost always involves a chord progression containing notes not always found in the parent scale; and modal music which adheres only to notes found in a particular mode.
Glad you brought this up. I came here because I was watching a music video of a modern, retro artist with a '60s/'70s sound & someone mentioned it being modal music. I like music fr that era & wanted to learn what is the key to that sound.
The arrangement of "Trust and Obey" on my channel is modal, all in F lydian AND with chords, but melodies do take precedent over specific chords, though it certainly is chordal. All of my songs are in true intonation aka Pythagorean tuning.
Hello Heinz, I'm not sure you can generalize about an entire genre of music in this way, but the Klezmer and Celtic music I'm familiar with seem to gravitate toward a single mode.
Do you have any analysis of the style of Gil Evans and his work with Miles Davis? Sketches of Spain, Porgy and Bess, and Miles Ahead... and possibly Quiet Nights. I believe it's called Third Stream, and I never hear anyone discuss it.
Very nice, but for example if we have a chord progression that "fits" in a 1 mode, for example a II V I en C, with the chords being Dm7, G7 and Cmaj7, so we have a modal or a tonal piece?? because for what you say this example is MODAL, right? because all of the chords fits in 1 MODE (the C IONIAN mode). Please correct me if im wrong. Aniway great video and explanation. Greetings from Buenos Aires Argentina !
Hello Alejandro! Actually, what really makes the distinction between modal and tonal music is having that chord progression. In the old days of purely modal music, there were no such thing as chords or chord progressions. Those things developed consequentially. So today, if we have a song that sticks entirely to say Ionian mode, yet has a definite chord progression, we call it tonal. The chord progression is the decisive factor. Thanks for the comment, Alejandro!
Your ability to explain things is exceptional. I liked your explanation of the history of western music very much. If you do not mind the question - do you think the theory about whole beat metronome use (WBMP) is true? Are the tempi of modern interpretions from e.g. Beethoven too fast? My gut feeling tells me this theory is correct, tempi are much too fast, but most contemporary musicians dismiss it. I am confused.
Klaus, this theory is something that I'm not really sure about. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the classical music we interpret is not exactly what the composer intended, including the tempi. In some cases, like J.S. Bach, there were practically no dynamic or articulation markings much less correct tempo indications. I think music is similar to story-telling in that details get changed every time the story is told. Some of these changes may become status quo and others are forgotten. If you combine that with the audiences' appetite for impressive and emotional performances, you can see how we might trend toward raising tempi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
@@ericbikalesmusic1975 Thank you very much for your kind answer. I would like to explain why I think the tempo-question is so important: the sound, character and message of a piece is completely different if the tempo is doubled. This is a major change, especially for slow pieces. I find it unlikely that the composers of the baroque period - coming from gregorian chants and counterpoint - would write music as fast as e.g. Bach is played today. Today is not only a bit faster, it is about twice as fast (if WBMP is correct). If that dramatic mistake with the metronome markings for older music happened (1800 - 1900) than our whole conception of music is not even near the intention of the composers. Why would composers of the classical period and later write 32nd notes if the are nearly impossible to play? Why would composers write music in a tempo that only very good musicians can play? The performance is certainly impressive, but no longer emotional (well, for me). I hesitate to use the word hysterical for todays performances, because musicians believe they do it right by doing it fast. But are the implications of the Whole-beat theory thought through before it is dismissed so lightly by many experts? Please forgive me if I seem to harp on this, but if wise teachers like you consider this matter, perhaps something will change...
@@klausjens2427 Thats an interesting and thought provoking subject, Klaus. We also didn't have standardized tuning for much of western music's early development. So I imagine that if we had any idea of how different things were back then, we'd be shocked. Sad that we don't have recordings of music from those early days. We might be amazed...
@@klausjens2427 I’m sorry but the WBPM has no evidence apart from some pieces being very hard to play. We have recordings of chopins direct students. Along with this Beethoven was close friends with the guy that made the original patent for metronome. The instructions by him are the same as today. We have many first hand written accounts of how long certain pieces would take, ESPECIALLY OF BEETHOVEN. They seem to be pretty much in line with out current times. Believers in WBPM seems to have a case of confirmation bias
When for example the song One from U2, which has a A minor (Aeolian) verse and a C major (Ioneian) chorus, is called modal by my (educated) jazz teacherbecause you can stay in the same 7 notes. In jazz you switch from 'mode/scale' every 2 or 4 bars, you actually react to chords themselves more often than you keep playing (and thinking) in scales. You can't play the same notes over and over again like you can do in most pop/reggae/rock/metal etc. music. The jazz teacher and a few guys that I know speak of modal when 1 there are 1 no chord changes at all or 2 no scale changes - so the same notes can be used to improvise/play solo's for the whole piece. If not the case than they call it tonal, so I get a little confused of your explanation.
How about the notion of the modal cadence being Bb to C whereas the tonal would be B natural to C . In other words no leading tone (half step leading tone to tonic) Of course the Lydian has a major seventh. This is a thorny topic.
I agree with you, Charsi, it is a thorny topic. The main distinction between these two forms of writing music, modal or tonal lies in the approach of modal being contrapuntal and melodically oriented. Any definable chords in this form of music were happy accidents. Whereas, tonal music applies a chord progression (even if it remains in 1 mode) to a melody. I admit that you can find examples of modern music that adheres to one mode. But if there is a chord progression, even a b7, 4, I or something even simpler, it really is more in the tonal category. It's just not quite as exact as math.
How would something that sticks to Dorian not necessarily be tonal? So much modern/tonal music stays within Ionian or Aeolian, of course. The Beatle's Let It Be is very diatonic and stays in C Major - thus, Ionian - the whole time - but it is not modal. Modal make sense to be when looking at Miles' So What - it just bounces between Dm and Ebm (well Dmadd4 and Ebmadd4) and does not go anywhere. Can you elaborate? Thx!
Eric Bikales Music 10:03 PM (0 minutes ago) to TH-cam Hi Scott, Yes you are correct about the fact that many pop songs stay either in the Ionian or Aeolian mode, yet are not by my definition true modal pieces. The distinction here is that those songs possess chord progressions that are the ear-mark of tonal music. These chord progressions are the thing that separates tonal from modal music. The original modal approach was either one or more monophonic lines played together perhaps, but adhering to a certain mode. At that point in musical development, they were thinking in linear or contrapuntal terms, certainly not chords and chord progressions. Chords and progressions were an ultimate consequence. I suppose you could say that this distinction isn't exactly perfect, like so many other things in music. But it does help us to differentiate between purely modal music, it's origin and the tonal movement which developed along with the triad, the most basic complete chord. Thank Scott, Eric
I think we like to call certain pieces modal these days. ie: Maiden Voyage---all Dorian. They are in a sense. But I think the distinction lies in whether there is a chord progression or not. True modal music has no chords, only melody and counter melodies. They hadn't invented chords at that point. So we can write music today that stays in one mode, but I wouldn't consider it modal from a historical point of view. I'm really learning a lot from all of you who write in comments! Thank you Scott.
Do we know for certain that tonal music didn’t exist during the medieval and Renaissance time periods, particularly in folk music? If they weren’t writing it down we can’t really know, right?
We don't know for certain, John, but during the era of Gregorian chants, there were essentially no chords being used until they combined 3 monophonic lines. Then, chords emerged as a happy accident. This developed into triadic harmony and chord progressions. There may have been some outliers who were way ahead of the curve being developed in the church, but we'd probably have to consult a very learned musicologist to get closer to an answer. Thanks for the comment john!
It's true that we can't say for sure. I, for one, very much doubt if there hadn't been in ancient times any experimentation with polyphony of some sort. And it just might have happened that triads have occurred, we can't say. What we can say is that if they happened they weren't given any theoretical recognition that we know of, which would likely indicate they weren't in usual practice. Plainchant, of which Gregorian Chant is the most well-known variety, would require minimal harmonic complexity because of the muddy sound it would result from such reverberant spaces as churches. Polyphony developed mainly within the secular (as opposed to religious) music context, namely to allow for more participation, vocal and instrumental. Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject.
You are confusing a few things here: historically modes come from linear thinking but the differentiator between modal and tonal is not it’s verticality or linearity it’s the leading tone. Tonal music has a hierarchy between the tones and uses only two scales: major and harmonic minor. This is because the leading tone is a half step under the tonic and this creates tension towards the tonic. Modal music is using all modes and not having any leading tone except at the end of the cadence. Mistake number two : you said a pop song can change modes and this wasn’t done in modal music, this is incorrect.It is very common in modal music that the sentences are in different modes. Analyse some polyphonic music for yourself and you will see that voices can be in different modes from another and can switch between modes. Another correction: most music nowadays is modal not tonal. This is because modal and tonal thinking have nothing to do with verticality or not it’s because the leading tone. Most music nowadays is modal, pop jazz etc all modal. They don’t have any tension tones that are obliged to resolve and they don’t have any hierarchy. Other than those 3 mistakes a very good summary of western classical music.
You forgot modal harmony, go listen to EST they breakthrough and revolutionized what we call modal. we can make modal music with 41 modes, and we can switch modes in the same piece.
To say that any progerssion that sticks to one mode is modal confuses me. Does this also apply to Ionian or the major sacle mode where functional harmony rules? I understand that it would be modal in as much as it is in "Ionian" but I thought "modal" music did not use functional harmony. When you say Tonal is that the same as functional harmony?
Well, if one sticks to the harmonies of the ionian mode and if the harmonies are driven by function, then yes, in a way it's modal, but it would be far more appropriate to say it's functional. It would be quite hard to have a ionian purely modal song as it would be very easy for functional harmony to occur. Yes, I believe that by "tonal" it is meant "functional harmony".
I don't get it :( What if someone make full music piece in Dorian, but would use cadences and chords progressions and use some obvious form, like period, by your definition it would be modal piece, but it would in practice sound and feel like typical functional harmony. Raised 6th wouldn't be enough to dramatically change everything. So if there is no difference if you use Dorian or Aeolian, maybe true modal music characteristic is not "stick to a particular mode except major or minor"?
Hi :) I have problem with functional harmony of harmonic Major /ionian b6 progressions,how to use it etc we have dimminished chord on ii and vii ...and "iv", if we play (in C ionian b6) f,a-flat b and "vi" B dim,D dim,F dim,Ab dim. "vii" is rootless dominant in natural Major "ii" is sub dominant ii but in harmonic Major "ii" is dimminished chord vii,iv and vi also so,we have four rootless dominants? Three diatonic and one nondiatonic?
The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the root note is independent from the key. So a song in C major uses the notes of C but also the root note C. Like if the sur-name and the first name were the same. And sooner or later you forget, that you have 2 pieces of information (because most of the time they have the same name). The point is, that you can "MAKE" any not of the scale the root note by emphasizing it. And voilà - you get a different mode. Took me time to understand that a root note is created by MAKING it sound like home base.
Although you have the right notion about emphasizing different notes will change *the mood* of the sound that is produced, hence the mode, your concept is incorrect. For instance, D Dorian is not in the C major key. You'd write it on a score with a D minor key signature (one flat on B) and locally, at each measure, proceed with the alterations that "transform" the expected D natural minor scale to a D dorian scale, which would be a raised 6th (so, using a natural symbol on the very same note that the signature had altered to a Bb, returning it to a natural B). Why this apparent complication? Because a trained reader, looking at the key signature would immediately identify it as a D minor of some sort (or F major, if it was major, but that distinction would likely be easy to spot too). So when one starts reading, it is ready to play over a D minor tonality. When the natural accidental occurs at the 6th degree, the reader would understand that the melody or chord belongs to D dorian (or D phrygian if there was instead a lowered 2nd, or even D locrian if there was a lowered 2nd and a lowered 5th). So the key signature shows only the general flavor of the piece. If major, then the piece could be ionian, lydian or mixolydian, or really use any major flavored scale like harmonic major. If minor, it could be dorian, phrygian, aeolian or locrian, or any other minor flavored scale (like a minor blues scale). Another mistake, quite common actually, is that a scale has no root, chords do. The tonic note of a scale is called fundamental. Is this latter detail very important? No, not really, it's just a formalism.
I think you mean chord progression? And yes, that is a major distinction -that tonal music uses chord progressions. When modal music was the happening thing, it was pre-chord progression. People wrote and listened to music as combined melodies. Music then was linear. We like to say that improvisational tunes like So What are modal. But not in the true sense of linear modality.
Great job! You have not only clearly explained the difference between modal and tonal music, but also incidentally gave a concise history of western music in just 2 minutes! Looking from a non-European’s perspective, the development of the Western music tradition in Europe is really fascinating. In a sense, it has explored and colonised more “space” from the kingdom of music than any other traditions.
Thank you Dahong! This approach seems to help my students differentiate modal from tonal, but it's a subtle difference for many. Thanks for your comments!
I thank you for your time taken to teach about this subject. Note; perhaps you need to take the gain up 12db to normalize with other videos on TH-cam. thanks again.
Indian classical music is very drone dependent , so I see a big parallel.
The chordal addition and appreciation of harmony really transforms into a key and singing/playing songs.I love that.
The shift from Classical to Folk Song.
It is interesting also to see how tonal centring blurs into modality too.I noticed how the third note ( Phrygian, in a way) is quite common in Punjabi folk yet rare in Western song.Because a drone element somehow remains apparent.
In songs this is as common in India as the Natural Minor ( and Harmonic Minor).
Tonal centres of 3 and 6.
Thank you for your clarity.
Yes yes yes! I'm in awe of Indian music... the rhythmic solfege alone
is off-planet amazing. Absolutely. The use of drone has a powerful anchoring
effect which can help westerners re-discover the wonders of oblique voice motion
Excellent explanation of something I didn't know I didn't know. Thanks!
I now know something about whats being explained too...🤔
This is such a great explanation. I've been tinkering around with jazz guitar lately, and when you search the internet for how to learn jazz, you tend to see the concept of modes dominating everything. However, even the people teaching it don't really seem to grasp how to use the concept to make good music. Frankly, a lot of it is unlistenable to me. I've had a hard time understanding what the big deal was about modes, and your explanation demystifies a lot of it.
Thanks, learning and applying these principles in my music has been nothing short of a revelation.
Thanks Nathaniel. I love it when the light bulb comes on!
Just a quick note to begin with, the whole mode idea comes from ancient Greece, medieval monks later took these concepts and adapted them (with mistakes) to what was the music practice at the time.
It might be important to understand that when we speak about modal or tonal (I prefer another word, functional, but I'll get there) we're talking mostly about harmony. What differs between them is on how harmonies are working in the piece, if it's only because they sound good or if there is functional movement between harmonies, i.e. if the harmonies in the piece are driven by aspects of tension and resolution. Let's look at two examples:
1. Beethoven's 5th in C minor. After the two initial tadadadas, we're at the dominant chord G (or G7). We can feel it, it's now in a state of tension and needs to resolve to a state of rest, which will eventually happen at the end of the third tadadada that starts the following, softer, melodic line, over the tonic Cm. It's an example of functional harmony, in the *key* of C minor.
2. Now, take Scarborough Fair harmonization by Simon and Garfunkel. The harmonies are being put together because they sound good with the melody (believed to be from the 13th century). You can say its tonal center is A minor, and you can (and should) write it on a score with an Am key signature. However, this song has no key (in the functional sense), as we'll see. The Am key signature is used on the score only for reading convenience, and in the score you'd see one note being changed from the expected natural minor scale: the 6th. The 6th is raised (to F#), and you might suspect by this it's in the *mode* of A Dorian. Confirmation would be that there is no Dominant->Tonic functional resolution, i.e. there is no E7->Am which melodically would be spotted as a raised 7th (the leading tone G#) going to the tonic A. What we see instead is Em, implying melodically the subtonic note G moving to the tonic A, which is a nice movement, but not a resolution from a tension. So, it's not functional, but modal.
Why I prefer the term "functional" over "tonal" should now be clear. Virtually all music has tones (notes). Furthermore, virtually all music has a tonal center. But not all music with a tonal center is functionally oriented. So "tonal" might be as meaningful as "atonal", a term that Schoenberg himself despised but that history confirmed. As long as we remember that it means "avoiding a tonal center" we should be ok.
Great explanation! Thanks! I believe some 70`s American Funk Music could be some examples of modern modal music. Not most of them, though. But some songs stays on the same chord the whole time. This structure is good for improvisation for rhythmic exploration.
Yes, the same with some jazz tunes, great for linear exploration in a single mode.
Thanks Eric! Your solid understanding of music history is a rare thing these days :)
Awesome! I've found that experimenting with 2 and 3-part voice writing can help free us
from the stranglehold of 17th - 19th century harmonic conventions. By comparison,
3-voice writing seems fresh today and modern in a minimalistic sense...
Tonality is condition for modality. Modality is a concept of technique, tonality is the a musical condition of the sound. The term became important because of atonality and music based on other parameters beyond the tone.
I believe lots of Folklore/traditional musics (around the world) were mainly 'Modal'
And you'd be absolutely right.
Hey Eric, I went to Belmont with you about a decade or so ago. Glad I found your channel! Great to see you
Thanks for the explanation, I came here because of the causality of TH-cam algorithm and I found it very very interesting. I could be very interesting to hear a modern piece of music written purely on modal... or maybe compose one.
FINALLY, someone who goes back to the 9th and 10th centuries! You're the first one! I've been a fan of so-called "early music" for 40 years! Christ, you finally got out of that 80s chord/scale and chord/mode shit! THANK YOU!
Yeah, it's also funny when you talk to jazz cats about modes and they stare incomprehensively when you mention terms like compass, plagal vs authentic modes, hypodorian, finalis etc. But heck, Miles Davis apparently invented the modes.
Eric, going to second what so many others have said. I found this to be an excellent and very clear explanation of the difference between modal and tonal.
Good info. Some people think modal music is a new thing. Like in jazz, fusion and metal music. This videos clears that up.
Thank you! It's very interesting to see where our musical constructs came from and how they are being adapted. I admit the older I get the more this history becomes of interest.
My modal concept is totally diferent. For example, CEFGA is a C ionian mode to me. Because. It"s based on triads that have C in them FAC. ACE CEG. That being said. I feel you can conceptualize musical paterns anyway you want. I think this was an awesome video thank you.
thank you for your video. I have a question. Would you consider any songs of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue to be modal? Because if i remember correctly some songs are structured by modes and some contain multiple different modes for different sections of the song.
Thanks! I would consider those tunes to be good examples of modern modal songs. For me, when the changes just groove for multiple bars, it gives the improviser a platform for using a particular mode. The changes don't progress to other changes in the sense that many standard chord changes do.
and yet there are chordal changes/progressions within one key to support a particular modal sound. the most basic and effective such a chordal progression is toggling between the home chord and another chord that contains the character tone of the mode relating to the home chord. The home chord is always written as I for Major and i for minor chord. Example : I and II chords with phrasing emphasis on the I will give lydian sound. If the emphasis is on I will give mixolydian sound when toggling with VII. The improvisation needs to be started and finished on the chordal tones of the home chord as well as targeting the character tone of the mode. For me, modal sound is everything. However, playing with only one mode over chord changes, let's say playing only minor chords in progression with only one scale eg. dorian scale, it has its own sound but it does not really provide a dorian atmosphere. It will work in its own way, some call this method parallel modes
Tonality is condition for modality. Modality is a concept of technique, tonality is the a musical condition of the sound. The term became important because of atonality and music based on other parameters beyond the tone.
Thanks Emanuel. I don't disagree with you. My application of these terms is to show modern music students the difference between tonal music (most music today) that almost always involves a chord progression containing notes not always found in the parent scale; and modal music which adheres only to notes found in a particular mode.
I think back in those days when they didn't know about chord changes they knew a lot more about chord changes!
As I'm getting through your explanation, I can't help but thinking about many examples in 70s progressive rock music music having modal approach.
Glad you brought this up. I came here because I was watching a music video of a modern, retro artist with a '60s/'70s sound & someone mentioned it being modal music. I like music fr that era & wanted to learn what is the key to that sound.
The arrangement of "Trust and Obey" on my channel is modal, all in F lydian AND with chords, but melodies do take precedent over specific chords, though it certainly is chordal. All of my songs are in true intonation aka Pythagorean tuning.
thanks for the clear explanation
Thank you! The historic approach is very helpful. It seems to me that Celtic Music and Klezmer are also mostly modal. Would you agree?
Hello Heinz, I'm not sure you can generalize about an entire genre of music in this way, but the Klezmer and Celtic music I'm familiar with seem to gravitate toward a single mode.
Thank you, this has been very helpful!:)
You're certainly most welcome Milan!
Amazing video!
I guess that 1/2 hour jam on E with the weekend-warriors, was us playing modally. LOL
Do you have any analysis of the style of Gil Evans and his work with Miles Davis? Sketches of Spain, Porgy and Bess, and Miles Ahead... and possibly Quiet Nights. I believe it's called Third Stream, and I never hear anyone discuss it.
Very nice, but for example if we have a chord progression that "fits" in a 1 mode, for example a II V I en C, with the chords being Dm7, G7 and Cmaj7, so we have a modal or a tonal piece?? because for what you say this example is MODAL, right? because all of the chords fits in 1 MODE (the C IONIAN mode). Please correct me if im wrong. Aniway great video and explanation. Greetings from Buenos Aires Argentina !
Hello Alejandro! Actually, what really makes the distinction between modal and tonal music is having that chord progression. In the old days of purely modal music, there were no such thing as chords or chord progressions. Those things developed consequentially. So today, if we have a song that sticks entirely to say Ionian mode, yet has a definite chord progression, we call it tonal. The chord progression is the decisive factor. Thanks for the comment, Alejandro!
Your ability to explain things is exceptional. I liked your explanation of the history of western music very much. If you do not mind the question - do you think the theory about whole beat metronome use (WBMP) is true? Are the tempi of modern interpretions from e.g. Beethoven too fast? My gut feeling tells me this theory is correct, tempi are much too fast, but most contemporary musicians dismiss it. I am confused.
Klaus, this theory is something that I'm not really sure about. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the classical music we interpret is not exactly what the composer intended, including the tempi. In some cases, like J.S. Bach, there were practically no dynamic or articulation markings much less correct tempo indications. I think music is similar to story-telling in that details get changed every time the story is told. Some of these changes may become status quo and others are forgotten. If you combine that with the audiences' appetite for impressive and emotional performances, you can see how we might trend toward raising tempi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
@@ericbikalesmusic1975 Thank you very much for your kind answer. I would like to explain why I think the tempo-question is so important: the sound, character and message of a piece is completely different if the tempo is doubled. This is a major change, especially for slow pieces. I find it unlikely that the composers of the baroque period - coming from gregorian chants and counterpoint - would write music as fast as e.g. Bach is played today. Today is not only a bit faster, it is about twice as fast (if WBMP is correct). If that dramatic mistake with the metronome markings for older music happened (1800 - 1900) than our whole conception of music is not even near the intention of the composers. Why would composers of the classical period and later write 32nd notes if the are nearly impossible to play? Why would composers write music in a tempo that only very good musicians can play? The performance is certainly impressive, but no longer emotional (well, for me). I hesitate to use the word hysterical for todays performances, because musicians believe they do it right by doing it fast. But are the implications of the Whole-beat theory thought through before it is dismissed so lightly by many experts? Please forgive me if I seem to harp on this, but if wise teachers like you consider this matter, perhaps something will change...
@@klausjens2427 Thats an interesting and thought provoking subject, Klaus. We also didn't have standardized tuning for much of western music's early development. So I imagine that if we had any idea of how different things were back then, we'd be shocked. Sad that we don't have recordings of music from those early days. We might be amazed...
@@klausjens2427 I’m sorry but the WBPM has no evidence apart from some pieces being very hard to play. We have recordings of chopins direct students. Along with this Beethoven was close friends with the guy that made the original patent for metronome. The instructions by him are the same as today. We have many first hand written accounts of how long certain pieces would take, ESPECIALLY OF BEETHOVEN. They seem to be pretty much in line with out current times. Believers in WBPM seems to have a case of confirmation bias
When for example the song One from U2, which has a A minor (Aeolian) verse and a C major (Ioneian) chorus, is called modal by my (educated) jazz teacherbecause you can stay in the same 7 notes. In jazz you switch from 'mode/scale' every 2 or 4 bars, you actually react to chords themselves more often than you keep playing (and thinking) in scales. You can't play the same notes over and over again like you can do in most pop/reggae/rock/metal etc. music. The jazz teacher and a few guys that I know speak of modal when 1 there are 1 no chord changes at all or 2 no scale changes - so the same notes can be used to improvise/play solo's for the whole piece. If not the case than they call it tonal, so I get a little confused of your explanation.
How about the notion of the modal cadence being Bb to C whereas the tonal would be B natural to C . In other words no leading tone (half step leading tone to tonic) Of course the Lydian has a major seventh. This is a thorny topic.
I agree with you, Charsi, it is a thorny topic. The main distinction between these two forms of writing music, modal or tonal lies in the approach of modal being contrapuntal and melodically oriented. Any definable chords in this form of music were happy accidents. Whereas, tonal music applies a chord progression (even if it remains in 1 mode) to a melody. I admit that you can find examples of modern music that adheres to one mode. But if there is a chord progression, even a b7, 4, I or something even simpler, it really is more in the tonal category. It's just not quite as exact as math.
I think Robert Rich basically uses modes. It's ambient music, but some is more active like Neurogenesis and Filaments.
That helped a lot on different levels !!!
Look at a tune like Joe Henderson's Inner Urge. It has chords yet there is no tonic / dominant relationships. It's both modal and tonal.
How would something that sticks to Dorian not necessarily be tonal? So much modern/tonal music stays within Ionian or Aeolian, of course. The Beatle's Let It Be is very diatonic and stays in C Major - thus, Ionian - the whole time - but it is not modal. Modal make sense to be when looking at Miles' So What - it just bounces between Dm and Ebm (well Dmadd4 and Ebmadd4) and does not go anywhere. Can you elaborate? Thx!
Eric Bikales Music
10:03 PM (0 minutes ago)
to TH-cam
Hi Scott,
Yes you are correct about the fact that many pop songs stay either in the Ionian or Aeolian mode, yet are not by my definition true modal pieces. The distinction here is that those songs possess chord progressions that are the ear-mark of tonal music. These chord progressions are the thing that separates tonal from modal music. The original modal approach was either one or more monophonic lines played together perhaps, but adhering to a certain mode. At that point in musical development, they were thinking in linear or contrapuntal terms, certainly not chords and chord progressions. Chords and progressions were an ultimate consequence. I suppose you could say that this distinction isn't exactly perfect, like so many other things in music. But it does help us to differentiate between purely modal music, it's origin and the tonal movement which developed along with the triad, the most basic complete chord.
Thank Scott,
Eric
I think we like to call certain pieces modal these days. ie: Maiden Voyage---all Dorian. They are in a sense. But I think the distinction lies in whether there is a chord progression or not. True modal music has no chords, only melody and counter melodies. They hadn't invented chords at that point. So we can write music today that stays in one mode, but I wouldn't consider it modal from a historical point of view. I'm really learning a lot from all of you who write in comments! Thank you Scott.
@@ericbikalesmusic1975 Ah, the chords/no chords sums it up... I feel like I knew this distinction a long time ago and forgot.
Do we know for certain that tonal music didn’t exist during the medieval and Renaissance time periods, particularly in folk music? If they weren’t writing it down we can’t really know, right?
We don't know for certain, John, but during the era of Gregorian chants, there were essentially no chords being used until they combined 3 monophonic lines. Then, chords emerged as a happy accident. This developed into triadic harmony and chord progressions. There may have been some outliers who were way ahead of the curve being developed in the church, but we'd probably have to consult a very learned musicologist to get closer to an answer. Thanks for the comment john!
It's true that we can't say for sure. I, for one, very much doubt if there hadn't been in ancient times any experimentation with polyphony of some sort. And it just might have happened that triads have occurred, we can't say. What we can say is that if they happened they weren't given any theoretical recognition that we know of, which would likely indicate they weren't in usual practice.
Plainchant, of which Gregorian Chant is the most well-known variety, would require minimal harmonic complexity because of the muddy sound it would result from such reverberant spaces as churches.
Polyphony developed mainly within the secular (as opposed to religious) music context, namely to allow for more participation, vocal and instrumental. Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject.
You are confusing a few things here: historically modes come from linear thinking but the differentiator between modal and tonal is not it’s verticality or linearity it’s the leading tone. Tonal music has a hierarchy between the tones and uses only two scales: major and harmonic minor. This is because the leading tone is a half step under the tonic and this creates tension towards the tonic. Modal music is using all modes and not having any leading tone except at the end of the cadence. Mistake number two : you said a pop song can change modes and this wasn’t done in modal music, this is incorrect.It is very common in modal music that the sentences are in different modes. Analyse some polyphonic music for yourself and you will see that voices can be in different modes from another and can switch between modes. Another correction: most music nowadays is modal not tonal. This is because modal and tonal thinking have nothing to do with verticality or not it’s because the leading tone. Most music nowadays is modal, pop jazz etc all modal. They don’t have any tension tones that are obliged to resolve and they don’t have any hierarchy. Other than those 3 mistakes a very good summary of western classical music.
Arvo Pärt's Fratres, Tabula Rasa, and Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten: All modal?
You forgot modal harmony, go listen to EST they breakthrough and revolutionized what we call modal.
we can make modal music with 41 modes, and we can switch modes in the same piece.
thank you! ♥️
Usually, Zappa's guitar solos are mostly 'modal' too.
To say that any progerssion that sticks to one mode is modal confuses me. Does this also apply to Ionian or the major sacle mode where functional harmony rules? I understand that it would be modal in as much as it is in "Ionian" but I thought "modal" music did not use functional harmony. When you say Tonal is that the same as functional harmony?
Well, if one sticks to the harmonies of the ionian mode and if the harmonies are driven by function, then yes, in a way it's modal, but it would be far more appropriate to say it's functional. It would be quite hard to have a ionian purely modal song as it would be very easy for functional harmony to occur.
Yes, I believe that by "tonal" it is meant "functional harmony".
I don't get it :( What if someone make full music piece in Dorian, but would use cadences and chords progressions and use some obvious form, like period, by your definition it would be modal piece, but it would in practice sound and feel like typical functional harmony. Raised 6th wouldn't be enough to dramatically change everything.
So if there is no difference if you use Dorian or Aeolian, maybe true modal music characteristic is not "stick to a particular mode except major or minor"?
Hi :)
I have problem with functional harmony of harmonic Major
/ionian b6
progressions,how to use it etc
we have dimminished chord on ii and vii
...and "iv", if we play (in C ionian b6)
f,a-flat b
and "vi"
B dim,D dim,F dim,Ab dim.
"vii" is rootless dominant in natural Major
"ii" is sub dominant ii
but in harmonic Major "ii" is dimminished chord
vii,iv and vi also
so,we have four rootless dominants?
Three diatonic and one nondiatonic?
chords come from scales .
The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the root note is independent from the key. So a song in C major uses the notes of C but also the root note C. Like if the sur-name and the first name were the same. And sooner or later you forget, that you have 2 pieces of information (because most of the time they have the same name). The point is, that you can "MAKE" any not of the scale the root note by emphasizing it. And voilà - you get a different mode. Took me time to understand that a root note is created by MAKING it sound like home base.
Although you have the right notion about emphasizing different notes will change *the mood* of the sound that is produced, hence the mode, your concept is incorrect. For instance, D Dorian is not in the C major key. You'd write it on a score with a D minor key signature (one flat on B) and locally, at each measure, proceed with the alterations that "transform" the expected D natural minor scale to a D dorian scale, which would be a raised 6th (so, using a natural symbol on the very same note that the signature had altered to a Bb, returning it to a natural B). Why this apparent complication?
Because a trained reader, looking at the key signature would immediately identify it as a D minor of some sort (or F major, if it was major, but that distinction would likely be easy to spot too). So when one starts reading, it is ready to play over a D minor tonality. When the natural accidental occurs at the 6th degree, the reader would understand that the melody or chord belongs to D dorian (or D phrygian if there was instead a lowered 2nd, or even D locrian if there was a lowered 2nd and a lowered 5th). So the key signature shows only the general flavor of the piece. If major, then the piece could be ionian, lydian or mixolydian, or really use any major flavored scale like harmonic major. If minor, it could be dorian, phrygian, aeolian or locrian, or any other minor flavored scale (like a minor blues scale).
Another mistake, quite common actually, is that a scale has no root, chords do. The tonic note of a scale is called fundamental. Is this latter detail very important? No, not really, it's just a formalism.
@@Pedro_MVS_Lima thank you - so in sheet music we refer to the major or its relative and tweak with flats naturals or sharps accordingly- cheers!!
2:28 you meant “vertical”, right? I’m sure you did
Checking out Maiden Voyage did help to understand the modal concept
So tonal means it has chords? That’s it?
I think you mean chord progression? And yes, that is a major distinction -that tonal music uses chord progressions. When modal music was the happening thing, it was pre-chord progression. People wrote and listened to music as combined melodies. Music then was linear. We like to say that improvisational tunes like So What are modal. But not in the true sense of linear modality.
@@ericbikalesmusic1975 Thanks for using So What as an example that everyone can recognize.
Monal and todal music.
4 voice. Drule.