Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge How do you feel about composing in modes other than major or minor?

Why is it that since the Middle Ages, almost nobody of significance has written any music in modes other than major or minor? Really, major and minor are only two of many modes, and yet they seem to be the only two in popular use.

Actually, the pentatonic scale has been used quite a bit in 19th and 20th century music. The use of the whole tone scale has really been limited to the impressionist composer, to guys like Debussy.


How about the lydian, dorian, phrygian, and mixo-lydian modes? Do you ever compose music using these modes or others?


Bach, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich and others each wrote 24 preludes, 1 in each of the major and minor modes. Why not write 24 preludes, 1 in each of the lydian and phrygian modes? Why not write 48 preludes, 1 in each of the dorian, mixo-lydian, whole-tone, and pentatonic modes?

I once tried writing a set of small pieces, each of which was based on one of the 352 partitions of the octave (chord types excluding inversions). The trouble is that I don't have the sort of brain capable of sticking to a pattern or structure or of following arbitrary rules. I think it comes from being primarily an improviser rather than a composer. In the latter, it seems to me, you have to constantly "work with tweezers" at the conscious level. With improvisation, you take every risk and fly off on every conceivable tangent. Usually this means using many keys and patterns both simultaneously and consecutively.

As most of my written compositions are just recollected improvisations, what keys, if any, they are written out in, is largely a matter of convenience after the event. Playing a group of short improvisations, each of which uses one key or pattern, was a good exercise my teacher used to give me when I was young, but once I memorised all these positions I stopped doing it.

But yes, I agree that the keyboard admits of many patterns other than major and minor scales on which sets of pieces could be based.

i think major/minor had advantages over those modes, which was the reason that mode stuff were out of favour around late of 18th centry or something, as i read.

i don't have any desire myself to write anything in modes than major/minor keys.

I started writing a piece in Locrian mode, but dropped it after a while - it got a bit tough as you don't have the 5th of the scale to work with - rather Locrian's got a built-in tritone. Maybe I'll pick it up again, but the piece was somewhat of a novelty - I don't have a whole lot of interest in composing in these modes, at least at this point in time.

But why? All of the other modes (out of these 7) do have the perfect fifth - locrian is the only mode that doesn't have it. But you could also definately take advantage of the built in tri-tone in locrian, which major and minor modes don't have.

Is it possible that the only reason why people have no desire to work outside of major/minor is because a long time ago it was arbitrarily decided that major/minor were more conveniant than the others, and the only "acceptable" ones to use?


It seems to me like a juicer has decided that he will only make juices out of apples and peaches. A long time ago, juicers used all sorts of fruits, but during the last 400 years or so, they only used apples and peaches. So he has no desire - and he doesn't like to try - to use other fruits like oranges and raspberries and kiwis and grapes and bananas in his juices. He'll only use the traditional apples and peaches, claiming that they are inherently better and more conveniant, when really he is just blissfully ignorant to the huge variety of fruits out there, and the vast assortment of unique tastes and textures, to make his juices more diverse and pleasing. He has all of these recipes for making jucies with apples and peaches, but he won't really try to make his own recipes for grape juice or pineapple juice because it's not something that's really familiar to him.


Or maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know.

Could someone please give me a short lesson in the different modal scales? I kind of forgot.

Maybe they're not used in composing as much because no one knows enough about them.

OK, modes.

The first one you know. For example, C Major (= "C ionian") goes C D E F G A B C. The order of the intervals is W W H W W W H (W=whole, H=half).

Imagine you were to use the same key signature but start on the 2nd note: D E F G A B C D. The order of the intervals here is W H W W W H W. That's the dorian mode, so if you use those same intervals beginning on C, you get C D Eb F G A Bb C, which is "C Dorian."

Now imagine you were to start on the 3rd note: E F G A B C D E. The order of the intervals here is H W W W H W W. That's the phrygian mode, so if you use those same intervals beginning on C, you get C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C, which is "C Phrygian."

and so on. The rest of the modes are lydian, mixolydian, aeolian (minor), and locrian.

i guess modes going away for good reason, and it's just like technology nowadays: why bother with cassette if we have CD, why bother with VHS when we have DVD, why use public phone if we have cell phone ourselves? yes, everyone knows major and minor, so what's the point going back to modes which many people have to check dictionary or something to know? yes, it's convenience and advantage of major/minor key music which occupy the majority of music pieces. music is music, and unless there's some good reason (such as academic experiments/research as you'd do at school) for the need to compose music in some mode, i don't see the necessity of that.

Well, here is a reason why we might explore modes, as composers have begun to do during the first half of the 20th century: because for so many years we have been using major and minor modes, and where do we go from here? The solution that many have come up with, for innovation, is to go atonal, but why go atonal when there are still soooooo many ways of writing tonal music that is entirely different from anything written before?

I don't quite agree with your technology analogy - I don't believe that major and minor are inherently better than the other modes. Of course, I know close to nothing about modes, so maybe I am wrong. But they seem to me like different fruits, like in my analogy before. Is that a good analogy? Major and minor are like apples and peaches, and the other modes are like different fruits - not better or worse, but just different. Yes, the locrian mode doesn't have a perfect fifth, but it has a tritone, which major doesn't have, and that's what makes it so unique! Lydian has BOTH a perfect fifth AND a tritone! Yes, people have to check dictionaries to learn about modes, because most people just haven't used them before. They aren't familiar with them.

But I don't see them as somehow inherently inferior, and I think that a wonderful way for composers to explore and to be innovative would be to explore these "unknown" modes - to start composing in these various modes and to really bring out the beauty and strengths of each and every one, just as for the last several hundreds years people have been so well composing music in the major and minor modes.

Remember, other cultures have used other modes aside from these, predominantly various forms of pentatonic scales in the East. It may be that in the West we have used predominantly major and minor modes, but other cultures have naturally and intuitively produced wonderful music that does make use of other modes. Debussy even used the whole-tone mode a lot, which is not major or minor, he composed extremely beautiful music. One reason his music is so beautiful, and so innovative, and so impressionist, is because of this wonderful mode (which, incidentally, like Locrian, does not have a perfect fifth and does have a tritone) that was hardly used before in Western classical music.

If you want to stay in the realm of Western classical music, really consider what Debussy did. Why can't we do the same thing with the lydian mode that Debussy did with the whole-tone mode? We should make these other modes popular. Compose and use them in our compositions so that people will know about dorian and mixolydian as they know about major and minor, without always having to look them up ignorantly in the dictionary, because some of their favorite compositions will be the "Sonata in F Dorian" or the "Piano Concerto No. 3 in G Mixolydian", and with the growing repertoire, they will learn in the very beginning that C Major has 0 flats, C Minor has 3 flats, and C Phrygian has 4 flats, and C Lydian has 1 sharp!

PJ, if Bach, Beethoven and many others chose major/minor for majority of their compositions, then there's good point of it, and i will stick with Beethoven's choice for better or worse ! the point of inovation is not just going back to modes so that you feel like doing something new, which is not that new anyway if modes was mainly used before Baroque era.

a lot of modern composers explore something new, whether it's mode or serilism or atonal stuff. does it mean their music better than those in major/minor? no, not really! there're always someone who's interested in something obscure or remote, which is not always a bad thing. some people feel such need to do so (like you), and some just don't see the point (like me). again, i would only say: music is music and it's not that important whether it's written in modes or major/minor or even atonal.

I'm not opposed to writing in modes or listening to works written in modes. It was explained to me once that our ears get used to hearing music in a "Western style" from an early age and so anything that deviates from this sounds strange. However, someone who grew up listening to other forms of music or modes then they sound perfectly fine to them. In short, a lot has to do with what we are accustomed to listening to.

I only have written in these other modes for various assignments but it was pretty fun. And if it weren't for that, I probably would have never even heard of them nor been interested.

For the argument that modes are "ancient" and don't have a place in music today, what about Gregorian chant? That made a comeback and became popular in today's music realm.

Signa,

You have a point, as long as time stands still, or as long as you're not interested in performances. The reality is that performers are somewhat prejudiced against what is termed pastiche. If you don't bring something to the table that is uniquely your own you'll be ignored. The reality is that functional tonality was so completely explored by so many excellent composers of the 18th and 19th centuries that there's a strong perception that there isn't anything new left to find there. Whether that's actually true or not doesn't matter. YMMV.

With regard to the extended harmonic and rhythmic techniques of the 20th century it's a very different story. My view is that many composers aimed to shock audiences and were unconcerned about beauty. Their interest was exploring these techniques as part of the "modern world" and when they wanted to connect with a more mainstream audience they opted to included elements of jazz or wrote for movies. This isn't to say there isn't a great deal of beautful music from the 20th century, Alban Berg's Violin Concerto is just one example of a ravishingly beautiful piece written using 12 tone technique. But there's much beautiful music yet to be written using these techniques. I'm well aware of the Schoenberg quote about music yet to be written in C and there may be great music yet to be written in C, but nobody will care.

These days the cliquishness of the 20th century is gone (I hope) and we're free to mix polytonality with 12 tone technique (though you'd be better off juxtaposing them) or symmetrical harmony with quartal harmony or making up new scales or using odd scales (like Egyptian or Hungarian or whatever) not just limiting yourself to the standard modes. Simply put, the sky is the limit. The question is do you wish to toil in the shadows of the great composers of the past by staying with major and minor modes? That would be like prospecting for gold in Pennsylvania, you might find some, but the significant fields were found and mined out long ago.

To be sure I like major and minor modes too, though I usually like to spice things up one way or another. I've always been one of those who sought unconventional harmonies, but dissonance for the sake of being shocking doesn't interest me. Like most composers I want people to listen to my music and be inspired and/or uplifted.

"If you don't bring something to the table that is uniquely your own you'll be ignored." - Steve

I find the opposite to be true today. If you’re too far removed from the norm the record companies don't know what to do with you (as far as marketing).

Best, John

Johnny, we're obviously talking about two completely different things. I was talking about getting classical performers to play your music. When you refer to record companies you're obviously talking about popular music. I would agree record companies wouldn't know what to do with music composed in anything but major or minor mode (though some heavy metal and progressive rock does get a bit experimental in this area).

BUT, it seemd pretty clear to me that Pianojerome was asking specifically about music composed within the classical tradition. He mentioned Debussy, Bach, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich and others. So your comment about record companies with it's obvious implications toward popular music seems to me to be a bit out of place in this discussion. But that's just my opinion.

Well, Johnny does have a point, even within the realm of classical music. How many classical pianists perform Beethoven's music, and how many perform Berg's music?

I agree. I don't agree with the notion that one should be different for the sake of being different, but I do believe that there is a lot of beautiful music to be written, well, differently than the ways that classical music has been written in the past.

In fact, Beethoven and Chopin and Debussy and Bartok all felt the exact same way, because they all wrote music that was quite different stylistically and structurally than the music before them. Imagine if they had all said, "Meh why should we write differently than Bach or Mozart"!

*** Progression not for the sake of progression, but for the sake of finding new ways of creating beautiful music.

"So your comment about record companies with it's obvious implications toward popular music seems to me to be a bit out of place in this discussion. But that's just my opinion"-Steve

No matter what the genre the big boys in the music industry are only thinking profit - and most aren't ready to take any risks - their jobs are at stake (welcome to the real World).

Be it classical or hip hop; the industry looks at it as how many sales is it going to generate? They don’t want anything too different – they’re afraid to take risks.

Classical music, whether performance or CD sales, isn't immune to the Music Industry's machinery. The farther away one gets from mainstream classical music the smaller the audience, the smaller the profits.

Best, John

Name one composer from the 20th century that composed music that sounded like Beethoven. I'm sure there were a few, but nobody plays them, why? Because Beethoven wrote Beethoven better than anyone from out time could. You won't get recorded if nobody plays it. There are plenty of performers who play Ravel, Prokoviev, Debussy and Shostakovitch. There are even some intrepid performers who play Boulez, Babbit and Ligetti. But nobody plays new music that sounds like old music, unless they wrote it. You're getting too far ahead if you're worried about record companies, worry about performers first, because you won't get published much less recorded if you haven't been performed.

Regarding record companiers, Naxos has recorded plenty of 20th century music, including the piano music of Samuel Barber. Apparently they make money at it because they keep doing it. The release last year of the William Schumann Violin Concerto (awesome piece) being another example. There are plenty of smaller labels that specialize in new music. I wouldn't worry about recording, but performances are hard to get.

I think that although we find other styles such as contemporary, Modern, 20th Cent. - whatever you want to call them interesting to listen to and most people listening like the idea of something new, different, unique, and unusual, and are fascinated by these sounds (even I enjoy composing occasionally in the style of Modern music), deep down no matter how you slice it, most people gravitate toward the familiar in which Western music tends to sound more familiar to our ears.

I have always felt people find comfort in familiarity and "pleasant" sounds and so it's no suprise that people prefer traditional sounds as in major or minor over other "obsure" sounds. I think especially in a stressful world where there are a lot of insecurities in life in general, at least music is the one thing people can fall back on to find peace, happiness, relaxation, comfort which is why I think most would prefer "traditional" sounding music.

In college, I had a hard time understanding why professors where encouraging students to "push the envelope" and drilling Modern music composers into students head almost to the point of an imbalance toward this extreme and this was 10 years ago and by the way those students talk in college now, this is still the case. The only explanation I can find for this is that many professors teaching in the colleges today came out of the 60's era and tend to push the thinking that stems from that era in their teaching - excuse the stereo-typing. Does anyone have a better explanation?

I don't understand what's wrong with allowing students and teaching students and pushing students toward more traditional styles without criticizing them for it. I grew tired of the 'weird' and 'unusual' in the student composition recitals/performances I attended as that seems to be all there was. Then the traditional sounding styles become the new and unusual and breaking the norm. I think a lot of students/composers are rebelling against and growing tired of this drive to create the unusual, unique, push-the-envelope Modern music style and gravitating back to traditional sounds.

I wrote a paper once in a music course about how I think people find comfort in familiarity in music, etc. I don't think this went over to well with the X-60's professor.

A very interesting perspective Sara - I agree.

I'd also like to add; there's still a lot more new music to be composed in the traditional styles, contrary to what some believe.

Best, John