Messages

@Ricky: If he flattens the G, he's flattening the tonic.

Ah, my bad. I didn't notice my mistake.

Maybe rewriting things in terms of sharps would be better, I don't know.

but in his view any key signature is ok as long as it's clean when it comes to the loose accidentals.

Not necessarily just to lose accidentals, more a case of finding a key signature that suits the music.

[B]

Ok, the option Jompa would hate: If possible (that is if your notation program can do that) is to make an custom key signature, in this case with B, D, E, F & G flatted. Another option could be trying to find the closest regular key signature. Basically those flats: B, E, A, D, G, C, F. And the A and C are to be naturalized. Assigning a key signature of major or minor by relating it to the tonic like Jompa suggests doesn't make much sense when looking at from a theoretical perspective. For example if I would want C Mixolydian the logical thing would be to use the key signature of one flat (Bb) but Jompa instead used the key signature of C major and flats the 7th each time by hand. Either way, do whatever you feel is better.

I think I was traumatized by our lack of internet for a few days, but at least I finally beat 3D Dot Game Heroes! :3

You beat it or beat it (got all the trophies)? I've played that game a while ago.

Cool that you had a meeting with the conductor and some of the musicians. Would be nice if I had such a meeting.

Alright, as for the music itself it sounds pretty good. I especially like the constrasts between the lower and higher parts of the ensemble that appear and it seems more thematically integrated (basically good structure and quite good balance between repeition and variation) than your previous march.

Fine lets end it there, it's another of those discussions that could go on forever as none of the involved in it will change their mind.

So when it comes down to it, this discussion is about why we use key signatures?

Or rather how they are used.

And I believe one has to use either major or minor out of what the tonic is, and wether the third is major or minor.
And you believe that one can use anything (even customized) as long as it is for the purpose of getting rid of accidentals.

Am I right?

If you believe it's only for minor or major then you should use no key signature (no sharps, no flats) for every piece that isn't major or minor, including modal ones. What you're saying is that it's better to use no key signature to notate something for instance in C locrian where you have quite a few flats.

What I'm saying is that key signatures should be used to make things clearer, especially when intending to do so by explicitly including the complete key (as in C Mixolydian). It's not like you would for instance use a key signature of no sharps or flats to notate a piece in A major and mark all the accidentals (which actually belong to the scale by default) by hand yet you treat the the non aeolian and non ionian modes that way. The solution is simple, use the right key signature to signify which of the tones should be flatted or sharped and make sure your intended tonic functions as a tonic.

Either way, my message to the musicologist and his response:


"Anyways, I've got an unrelated question/topic I hope you can explain to me. Basically I've been having a discussion about modes and key signatures on a forum with another forum member. The thing is that he composed a piece which he called "C Mixolydian Blues March" and what got my main attention was that he was using the key siganture of no flats and no sharps although C Mixolydian has the tones of C, D, E, F, G, A, Bb and thus should in my opinion using what I think is common sense music theory rules use the key sigature of one flat. He however claims that the key signature of no sharps and flats is required to make sure it shows that C is the tonic, basically using C major but modifying by throwing in redundant accidentals because he thinks that all scales/modes that have a major chord on the tonic should be treated as "major", same principle for "minor" scales/modes (thus treating for example D Dorian as D minor but raising the 6th throwing in extra naturals instead of letting the key signature handle it). Either way his way of thinking doesn't make much sense to me as the key signature typically tells which tones the piece will mostly consist of and the tonic of the piece then is made more or less clear and can often be found (unless it's for example moving inbetween modes alot, polytonal, modulating alot or simply being atonal and so on, then the key signature maybe isn't so helpful). So, in summary if a piece isn't major or minor but in fact is modal which of the two approaches to the key signature is more correct (when looking at it from a theoretical point of view)?"



"Now as to the other issue: not having access to the comments on the other forum, my remarks can only be about what you have written. I think part of the confusion may come from the fact that key signatures were developed for and have a function only within the tonal system. In a modal system, their use, while practical, is a bit problematic. Yes, C mixolydian should have a key signature of one flat, but it's not actually a 'key', but a mode. Our system of notation is highly developed and incredibly useful, but it has certain quirks because of its history. For example, if you are writing whole-tone music the choice of what accidentals to employ is completely arbitrary because the notation was developed specifically for tonal, not whole-tone, music.

Similarly, some music written in the transition between the modal and tonal systems looks odd to us because it uses the 'wrong' key signature and even seems to end on the 'wrong' harmony. This is a big topic and there is an excellent discussion of it in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, vol. 51, no. 2, Summer 1998: "Modal Theory, Church Keys, and the Sonata at the End of the Seventeenth Century", by Gregory Barnett."

Ok, use Ab and Eb in the key signature. Problem solved. All the right tones are there without any accidentals, just like using one flat (Bb) key signature does when writing in C Mixolydian.

I have an argument though:
Your way barely even works! Just look at how you solved the Phrygian Dominant problem..

I solved it the way of not overcomplicating stuff by throwing one completely unnecessary sharp (F#) and having to flat the A instead of just using the C minor key signature and raise the Bb to B. Simplier, clearer, cleaner, more logical. And the other option was using a custom key signature which isn't so hard to do (at least not on paper).

Well, asked the musicologist I've been thinking about and hopefully he will respond soon (if he's not too busy). Either way I think of modes/scales as that, not modifications of two basic formulas (you could think of it as modificaton of the chromatic scale and thus all scales within our western music system are "chromatic" modes). And thanks for ignoring most of what I said once again, makes writing replies trying to explain such basic things with as much common sense as possible so much fun (because common sense is so hard to grasp). If you didn't notice (which in some previous cases you haven't), the previous sentence was sarcastic.

If I were to start doing what you are doing, then I wouldn't be able to play music with other people -.- Nor would I be able to make music for others.
You stated that I'm not alone, and no, I'm not alone - I have the majority of the musical world on my side, Ricky - because your only argument is about your personal preference, and most people choose music theory over that.
Those sites aren't much proof, they are just a way to explain the theory, after all.

See, taking things out of context and coming up with your own (wrong) interpretation. "You stated that I'm not alone, and no, I'm not alone - I have the majority of the musical world on my side" I've never said I've discussed this topic with someone else, I said I've met someone on another forum who acts the same way as you in discussions. I've never said I've discussed any music with that person, in fact the discussions were about more serious issues and not related to music AT ALL. So please before you start taking things out of context read what I wrote and think about it twice if you have to.

"If I were to start doing what you are doing, then I wouldn't be able to play music with other people -.- Nor would I be able to make music for others." Do what, claim that not all music is written in ionian or a modified aeolian? Most music (at least after reneissance) is in fact written in ionian or a modified aeolian (basically going inbetween natural, harmonic and melodic minor). So in most cases you would have two choices (once you find which tones seems to be the ones used), either major or minor. But, you have to understand that not all music is major or minor. Some is chromatic or even "atonal", some is polytonal, some is in whole tone scale, some is octatonic, some is even using microtonal intervals and the most obvious one, some is modal, in many cases a western church mode other than ionian or aoelian, such as dorian, lydian or mixolydian. So by confirming to the ionian or modified aeolian scales you surely you would be able to "able to play music with other people and "be able to make music for others". But obviously you don't seem to want to stay ionian or modified aeolian which is ofc fine but I'm just saying your breaking of music theory seems to suggest something else. Basically in the C Mixolydian piece you suggest by the key signature and emphasis on C as tonic that it's in C ionian, maybe while you're at it make sure to flat all the B's to make things clearer.

"because your only argument is about your personal preference, and most people choose music theory over that." I'm sorry but you got it wrong, I'm the one choosing music theory rules, you're the one with an odd personal preference. And who the klobb is "most people"? Most people who write music do it in ionian or modified aeolian. Does that mean that you're in fact not allowed to write a piece in for instance dorian or lets say hindu scale (just for the sake of argument) and make sure the key signature explicitly shows (together with the tonic) that it's this mode or that AND NOT simply major (ionian) or minor (aeolian)?

"Those sites aren't much proof, they are just a way to explain the theory, after all." What is a proof in this context? Where is your proof of your odd conception of modes/scales/key signature use? Should we ask a musicologist (I know one I can probably ask)?

Either way, want to see more people with my viewpoint or whatever (not saying that it's evidence but music theory isn't really scientific anyways):
http://www.slowplayers.org/SCTLS/modes.htm
http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/930/key-signature-for-writing-in-modes-other-than-major-and-minor
http://tunedb.woodenflute.com/tunedb/how_to_modes.html
http://audio.tutsplus.com/tutorials/music-theory/quick-tip-i-d-p-l-m-a-key-signature-guide/
http://www.standingstones.com/modeharm.html
http://www.mdc.edu/kendall/mtd/Online_Forms/Lab_Online/MHL_Modes_Church.pdf

And so on.

There aren't just two scales/modes (for instance mixolydian is not a major (ioninan scale), dorian is not a minor (aeolian) scale. Mixolydian is mixolydian, dorian is dorian) or whatever you want to call them, there are countless. You can but it's stupid to use the same "formula" for all of them. It makes no sense like I said and don't tell me I'm wrong for doing it the more correct way. Either way stick to your unlogical way of thinking of modes if you are so hard to convince with simple logic (which has happened in more than one discussion). You like to take things out of context and respond only to a part of it and come up with an excuse why you're right even though you're very wrong. At least you're not the only one, there's a guy on another forum I'm member of which acts about the same way in some discussions. Either way you should learn more about modes and scales.

No, dorian is not minor. It's a "minor" mode but it's a whole different mode. Dorian should be notated as dorian, not as aeolian. Your concept of modes makes no sense. Let me put it this way, a scale (probably not the proper word, maybe scale group would be more proper) is a formula of certain intervals, but within a scale you can switch the tonic so the order of the intervals in the formula changes which creates a mode. The most basic example is the western diatonic scale has seven steps but their order can be changed creating different modes (ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aoelian & locrian). Ofc a similiar thing can be made with for example the melodic minor, you can change the starting note so that the scale starts on another step and this creates another mode. Ofc, you can change which notes (or frequencies to be more scientific) are to be included, for example if you change from C Major to A major you don't have all of the same notes although the basic interval formula is the same. Same for other modes, obviously G Mixolydian doesn't have exactly the same tones as E mixolydian. But on the other hand the tones in G Mixolydian are the same as in C Major and the tones in E mixolydian are the same as the tones in A major. Now here's the thing, C major and G mixolydian (just like A Major and E mixolydian) SHOULD (and it is absolutely proper) have the same key signature, i.e. when written down on sheet music they should have the same amount of sharps and flats which in this case is none. They have the same tones, no tone is flatted, no tone is sharped.

The divide into "major", "minor" or "diminished" mode is propably a matter of the chord on the tonic. That however doesn't mean that you can treat lydian and mixolydian as it were ionian (major) or phrygian and dorian as it aeolian (minor) cause it's not the same. Lydian is not pure major or whatever you want to call it, it's pure lydian, sure it's just a sharp fourth that makes any difference but the effect is quite different. Same goes for any other of the modes. Of course you can break the rule, the obvious example is if you go to a huge extent inbetween modes, then it's probably best to decide one key signature for one scale and use accidentals for the other modes. But in your case you clearly want to refer to it as C Mixolydian therefore it only makes perfect sense to use the right key signature. The tones in the C Mixolydian key signature as the same as in D Aeolian, E Locrian, F Ionian etc., all they have in common is one flat on B. Thus the key signature for C Mixolydian is no sharps and one flat (on B). No flats or sharps or is obviously the completely wrong key signature as it makes it looks like it's C Ionian due to the key signature and C being the tonic.

"It is in G Phrygian Dominant (or rather builds on that scale). If G major doesn't apply, as you say - what key signature would, hm?" Well, the tones in the scale (if I understood it right): G, Ab, B, C, D, Eb, F so with "G Major" you have to flat the F# to F natural, A to Ab and E to Eb. If you would use the "C Minor" key siganture you would only need to raise the Bb to B. Simplier to say the least. In Sibelius (dunno if you can do that in Finale but whatever) you can create custom key signatures and it would suit to make the A and E flatted. Btw, the phrygian dominant seems to be a mode on the (lets call it) harmonic minor scale group, the same interval formula but with different starting points. G Phrygian Dominant is relative to C Harmonic Minor (same tones, different tonics).


Now if you don't understand this I don't know what can make you understand this relatively simple concept. In summary every mode is unique and should be treated like a unique mode and not merely as "major" or "minor" (what the klobb would the whole tone scale be for instance then? "augmented"?). Ofc modes and scale groups can be mixed in many different ways in compositions if desired but when basing a composition on a specific mode please write as it should be written for that mode (you wouldn't write your C's in a C major scale as D double flats unless it's a very specific case, the same way you don't use a C major key signature for a piece in C Mixolydian and just flat the B's, I don't know, for fun?). Let the key signature deal with it for your and everyone else's enjoyment (so these kind of situations don't have to happen) and don't tell me mixolydian is major, please.

[never]

Doesn't change that you wan't C major songs in mixolydian mode to be written in F major - you don't see anything wrong with that?
If you see a sheet with no sharps/flats and someone ask you to say what the key signature is, you would have to say "Oh, it's either in C major, D minor, E minor, F major, G major, A minor, or B minor". Or if there were three flats you'd have to say "Oh, it's either in Eb major, F minor, G minor, Ab major, Bb major, C minor, or D minor", because you wouldn't know what mode the song would be in before you could listen to it, and define the tonic. That defeats one of the main purposes of key signature -> specifying the tonic.

And in my piece it is mixolydian all the way - it never modulates. You're confusing it with progression.

I think I understand the way you think but it doesn't make much sense. For instance if you have a key signature of no sharps or flats and you don't see many accidentals it is very likely that it's a western (church) mode (ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian or locrian), more specifically either C Ionian (Major), D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian (Natural Minor), B Locrian. The most common and most likely option is that it's either in C Major or a modified version A Natural Minor. Which of all possible options (even going beyond western (church) modes) depends on the tonic. And the tonic is made more or less clear sooner or later (unless it's pretty atonal music). If C seems to be the tonic, fine, it's probably in C Major, if D on the other hand seems to be the tonic, then fine it's probably D Dorian.

Now you're suggesting that if something is written in D Dorian (obviously no sharps or flats in the scale) you should use the D Major key signature and make all the F and C (when you want) natural instead of letting the key signature handle it. Or another example: it's like writing in A minor but because you want to make sure everyone sees A is the tonic you use the A major key signature which has three sharps and not only have a bunch of accidentals for raising and lowering the 6ths and 7ths but also include three sharps that have to be made natural with accidentals. Why, isn't it easier just letting the key signature handle it and make sure your music puts emphasis on the tonic (to a degree that suits for the purpose)? Why you don't simply want to use one flat in your key signature when C mixolydian has one flat in its' scale is a mystery to me. It's obvious that F Major isn't the scale if you just make sure C is the tonic. Just because modes historically have been less commonly used doesn't mean common sense music theory rules shouldn't apply.

"That defeats one of the main purposes of key signature -> specifying the tonic." Right, because we don't commonly use two different modes with the same notes already and don't have to identify which of the two modes (ionian or aeolian) it is. Also if you specify the tonic by using the major key signature for the same tonic, for instance C as tonic using the key signature of C Major you still have to identify the mode depending on all the accidentals that happen to appear. So it could be C Major, C Dorian, C Phrygian, C Lydian, C Mixolydian, C Aeolian or C Locrian (not to mention countless other scales and modes).

Anyways, fine, I guess it's more decorative chromaticism in your piece then rather than chromaticism for the purpose of modulation and parts written in other keys.