Dorian K1 - Score -

In tonal harmony:

the Dorian mode cannot be a tonal center because this quality belongs to the relative minor of the Ionian scale.

the Lydian mode cannot be a tonal center because it possesses only one tonic.
the Locrian mode cannot be a tonal center because it does not possess a proper V.

The piece K1 uses the C# Dorian mode, not C# minor; in modal harmony, saying C# minor means nothing. In tonal harmony, saying C# minor means the relative minor of E major. The A# to which you refer is a structural part of the C# Dorian mode.

The C Ionian scale is called "diatonic" because it has two tonics, C and F. All scales are diatonic except for the Lydian.

All music is the expression of a state of mind. In particular, modes are attributed a state of mind; it is clear that interpretation can change based on the musician's sensitivity.

If the cadential tendency is towards the dominant triad and not towards the tonic triad, the importance of the tonic triad as a tonal center is lost. This is modal harmony: the elimination of the roles that modal scales have in tonal harmony.

If we derive modes from a Lydian scale instead of an Ionian scale, the relationships between the modal scales and the tonic triad change.

The relative minor is always on the VI degree of a major scale. In the Ionian system, for example, the relative minor is on the VI degree and is an Aeolian scale. In the Lydian system, the relative minor is obviously always on the VI degree but it is a Dorian scale. This is why in the Ionian system the Aeolian mode can be considered a tonal center and Dorian cannot. Conversely, in the Lydian system, Dorian is a tonal center and Aeolian is not.

Anyway, I realize that we are trying to climb a scale starting from the ......10th step.....

Be careful, I do not want the application of the Lydian concept to tonal harmony to be confused with true "modal harmony."

Excuse me, assuming that for me C major has a tonic, which is C; anyway, if we admit that C major (or C ionian, which sounds cooler...) has two tonics, C and F, then C lydian also has two tonics, C and G, because the raised IV degree can act as a leading tone to the V; only the sequence of tones and semitones shifts, but if E is the leading tone to F in C major, why can't F# be the leading tone to G in C lydian...?

At the same time: if you say that Dorian is not a "tonal station" (a concept you should clarify, since in my journey as a composer I have never heard this term...), then why are we all in agreement that your piece is in C#? If there is no tonal station, we should have difficulty determining the harmonic center of gravity.

Furthermore, I think that what characterizes the piece most is the sequence C# D# E, which is entirely analogous to the scale Bach already used to indicate minor mode pieces: he actually assimilated major mode pieces to the sequence C D E and minor mode pieces to the sequence D E F, nothing more and nothing less than what occurs in your piece; therefore, I don't see all this gust of novelty, all this complication of concepts regarding "true modal harmony," or all this dichotomy with tonal harmony. Frankly, I remain perplexed, hoping to understand where you are going with this. I will only say that in my piece Flower's galop, which is present in this section of the forum, there is a scale: Eb F G Ab Bb C Db, which is the combination of Lydian and Mixolydian modes, but for me that part is in Eb major, because anyway the third degree is a major third away from the I degree; the fact that there are alterations in the scale I use is part of that series of colors and nuances available to the composer, without this having to be in opposition to tonal logic.

I find this comparison interesting; I know I am following it passionately because I haven't found all this freedom (in a cage equal to others) elsewhere.

I know this is a composer's perspective, but I find it much more interesting to compose using scales of my own invention (which allow me to use the harmony that is most congenial to me) rather than medieval scales.

Besides, in reality, even good old Olivier improvised on his own material, so my point is also a bit broader

http://www.pianoconc..._8173#entry8173

All this to say that it is well known that the tighter the cage, the freer we feel; the absence of a cage would perhaps not even be human... everything in the world can be seen in the form of a cage, but in our own way, we find the one where we feel best.

I am not arguing, but to persist in claiming that there is freedom in modality and not in the rest seems like a "stretch" (to put it mildly); saying that modality is something new is another "stretch".
All in all, we are referring to a reference sound system as old as the hills, certainly, used and reused in different ways, but it's not as if we are facing a new way of composing.

What I do recognize in Modale is the fact that he has achieved and found his own style; this is a sign of maturity... but let's not insist on these stretches:

Modality=freedom

Tonalitity=cage

Modality has overcome tonal hierarchies

That, in general, a score is not sufficient to evaluate a piece because the performer is needed (I say it depends, and it is good that this very concept is made)
and so on.

Anyway, all very instructive

I respond to geppino:

Ask a harmony teacher or consult a good harmony textbook to find out how many tonics the ionian scale has and how many the lydian scale has.

If you reach the same conviction as I have, we can continue our discussion; otherwise, it becomes difficult to communicate.

The dorian scale used in tonal harmony does not constitute a tonal center. I have already stated the reason for this.

In modal harmony, there is no major or minor, understood in tonal terms; only the mode exists.

Response for dear Frank:

Thank you for your intervention:

I have always been a proponent of scales of personal invention that I call "officinal scales," meaning almost artisanal; in fact, my recent elaboration of the theme you proposed in the laboratory stems from an officinal scale.

Modal scales viewed as such—that is, as medieval—are undoubtedly obsolete, but if they are viewed modernly (and I am accustomed to doing so, unless I have to produce educational material like "Excerpt dorian sound" and similar) from a chromatic perspective, i.e., as offspring of a parent chromatic scale, then the "unplayed notes" in the mode, which are nonetheless "existing notes in the mode," can appear and acquire structural dignity rather than remaining simple and fleeting chromatics. This "treatment" makes modes much more suitable to the needs of the contemporary musician.

The cage exists if you see it, if you recognize it, and above all if it weighs on you; it depends on the mentality and character of the individual subject, and not just in the musical field. If the cage does not exist, the problem can be even more serious because the lack of boundaries—unless one has a rather strong personality capable of making one's own choices in an undelimited field without the tonal tracks that guide our mental train—can lead to an absence of compositional ability. And this is the freedom I am talking about: the possibility of choosing a space for myself, rather than utilizing a space imposed by two tonics. It is clear that we are dealing here with issues that very few people raise. Regardless, it does not seem to me that I have hypertrophied this dialectic regarding "cages" so much; I expressed my ideas, then limited myself to responding. In the end, true freedom lies in what one enjoys.

modale wrote:

The cage exists if you see it, if you recognize it and above all if it weighs on you; it depends on the mentality, on the character, of the individual subject, and not only in the musical field. If the cage does not exist, the problem can be even more serious because the lack of boundaries—unless one has a rather strong personality capable of making one's own choices in an undelimited field without the tonal rails that guide our mental train—can lead to an absence of compositional ability.

The important thing is that you are aware that modality is your response to this need, but there are an infinity of other alternatives.

Already dodecaphony was a response, and that was a century ago. Microtonality? Structuralism? Do we want to continue?

modale wrote:

And this is the freedom I am talking about, the possibility of choosing a space for myself, not making use of a space imposed by two tonics.

Trifles, there isn't just modality and tonality... so much so that I haven't read your opinion on my piece from the workshop where I don't see much tonality or modality... unless something was kept from the starting material which was appropriately released. It would be nice, however, to discover the original signature.

modale wrote:

It is clear that here we are dealing with problems that very few people pose.

It's a lovely atmosphere.

modale wrote:

Anyway, I don't think I have hypertrophied this dialectic regarding "cages" all that much; I expressed my ideas, then I limited myself to responding. In the end, true freedom lies in what is pleasing.

Very free indeed, but all this referring to tonality does not benefit you (at least nowadays)."}

All of Russell's speculation arises from more or less questionable theoretical assumptions: the Lydian scale is supposedly more responsive to the natural arrangement of sounds compared to the major scale because in the harmonics of C there is an F# and not an F, and because in the circle of fifths, if you put F# instead of F, you conclude the cycle starting from C better, because F# will be at a perfect fifth distance from B, whereas natural F would be at a diminished fifth distance and thus would break the regularity of the circle of fifths.

This is the basic premise for reconsidering a new approach to tonal conception, which does not start from the major scale but from the Lydian mode.

Now, this theory was formulated in the '50s when there had already been not only the great composers of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods and the entire revolution of the early 1900s, but tonal jazz was also beginning to establish itself.

So I ask myself: can this theory ever hold up against so many centuries of music that progressed brilliantly even without the Lydian concept but with the natural fourth degree...? Was the world waiting specifically for Russell to make music, after there had already been Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, and all the Romantics, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and his followers? It seems to me that the comparison is untenable; therefore, placing Russell's theory in antithesis to the centuries of musical production that had already existed would be like comparing an ant to many giants.

Now, everyone is free to like whatever they want and to follow whatever path they want, even the one of throwing their hands at a scale because "any note I take is always fine" as long as it is part of the scale so that I can justify it according to modal logic; then maybe when I get bored, I transpose the fragment into another key and keep going like that, saying that this is my way of composing. Anyone with a bit of musicality could do that, thus becoming an extemporaneous composer, disregarding concepts of form, genre, proportions of the piece, coherent development, writing, etc... everything is fine, but not everyone is a genius, so in the end, if there is a lack of content underneath, it inexorably comes out, especially if on the other side there are people who have been making music for 30 years and therefore know enough tricks themselves.... For goodness' sake, one can even build a career this way; people are thirsty for smoke in their eyes, but just don't pass it off as a new way of making music, as a musical revolution, as the breaking down of cages or similar trivialities, or at least take responsibility when these things are asserted in a context frequented by other musicians.

To me, Schoenberg with the theory of dodecaphony is much more "forward-thinking" than Russell, and it seems to me that history has given the recognition deserved to the importance of their respective theories.

For Frank

I wrote something:

http://www.pianoconc...2/page__st__140

Regarding your piece, the Nocturne, my opinion is that it is an excellent tonal piece in A minor.

I know well that talking about certain things is of no use, and playing them is also of no use, unless one is facing a prepared audience.

Mine is a risky path, not for me, but to reach that audience that loves perfection, that does not outrage feelings, that audience that does not want to think about that inner music which is often vulnerability, fragility, weaknesses, canons detached from the society of happiness=oppression in which we live.

For geppino:

Russell has done nothing more than codify into thesis form what musicians have already been doing by instinct for centuries and continue to do today.

Russell did not invent anything; he only wrote in a textbook and published what was previously done by instinct. This is the novelty.

I wish to reiterate once again that G. Russell's "Lydian concept of tonal organization" is nothing other than the application of modal scales within tonal harmony. Modal harmony has nothing to do with G. Russell; it is something else because the laws to which chordal/modal sequences are subject are different from those that govern the chordal sequences of tonal harmony.

A question for geppino: have you ever wondered why, if we consider the C scales of Western Harmony, only the Ionian scale possesses the natural F, while all the others contain F#? I am speaking of the C diminished scale, the C Lydian augmented scale, the C Lydian Dominant scale, Debussy's whole-tone scale, the two C octatonic scales, and the C Blues scale? Scales used from Bach to O. Berti, therefore of great usage.

I can give you the answer to this question: Because the Ionian scale, despite its excellent and versatile bitonal sound, is NOT THE GENERATOR of the chords used in western harmony (synonym for church harmony); the constant presence of F# in the C scales of western harmony clearly makes us understand that the chord-generating scale is the C lydian scale. The C Ionian scale is an altered C lydian scale. I leave it to you to imagine everything that follows from this statement, obviously if shared.

And so why is there more literature based on the major scale than on the Lydian mode? Is it ever possible that a genius like Mozart was so insensitive as to not understand the imperfection of the major scale compared to the presumed perfection of the Lydian mode...? Is it ever possible that the major scale crystallized over time as the reference scale in harmonic conception only due to intellectual "laziness," or due to the obtuseness of composers, or merely out of habit?

I am only saying that there is no presumed imperfection and no presumed perfection, that our temperament is just one of many possibilities and that it is all a convention, from the names of the notes to the width of intervals to scales, etc., and natural musical phenomena, such as the phenomenon of harmonic sounds, are not sufficient justification to advocate for one cause or another; therefore, given that it is all a great convention, much like the language we speak, everyone expresses themselves as they best see fit as long as the language is shared, without necessarily having to point out more or less a presumed freedom versus a cage, because here it is all a great cage, in which those who are skilled know how to move better than those who are not.

I repeat the fundamental point: the evidence of the quantity and quality of musical production based on the major scale is not undermined by theoretical arguments in favor of Lydian theory; if I hear Bach's Mass in B minor, I think it is perfect as it is, regardless of the Lydian mode, because perhaps the elements that make music great do not reside only in the underlying harmonic concept, but also in other elements, which I mentioned before: originality of materials and content, importance of developments, coherence of forms and proportions, etc...

I prefer an Ionian sonic cathedral to a Lydian sketch....also because by now I know the sensations of individual modes well; they no longer surprise me if they are the only noteworthy element.

To Modale:

I remember well what you wrote

modale wrote:

Regarding your piece, the Nocturne

I was referring to Passion, you probably missed it

For Frank:

how can I listen to Passion?

For geppino: The Ionian scale and the harmony derived from it is a product generated by the chromatic lydian scale, one of many.

We can use it as it has been used throughout the centuries; the important thing is to know this origin of its and, above all, it is important to know that it is not a generator of chords. Obviously, I leave the consequences of all this to the interlocutor's judgment. The favored scale of the linear, teleologically oriented Western mentality is the Ionian major scale. It has been the preferred scale of Cartesian rationalists, predators of various kinds, imperialists, gangs, military/industrial complexes, Western minds in general, at all levels of Western societies.

Mine are not criticisms, but observations. The important thing is to know that harmony is born from a lydian scale and Ionian harmony is a small aspect of it in wide current use, as well as in the past and perhaps the future. But by historicizing the phenomenon, I wonder how long it will last. All in all, the answer is that it doesn't interest us much given the short span of our lives.

It is not certain that what has been done for centuries can be done for many other centuries; I am not even saying to change, the important thing is to have the awareness of WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING! .

A very engaging and interesting discussion.

modale wrote:

For Frank:

how can I listen to Passion?

I played it myself ... there are those who don't need to because they have a very well-trained ear, but that is not my case

modale wrote:

For Frank:

how can I listen to Passion?

I had missed this post, I'm sending you the link where I uploaded a mediocre mp3 made quickly with the PC

http://www.pianoconc...rati/#entry8068

I think it is the ugliest playback I have ever produced; in short, it's not that I really felt like it, but I made an effort since you seemed to be having difficulty.

Bye

Frank

The harmonic elaboration is truly interesting. You will have understood by now that I don't like the rhythms defined at the beginning of the piece. Obviously, it's a matter of taste.

Compliments.