[Giz Bowe:]
OK, you're notating a blues in D -- that's D mixolydian. What's your key signature, the standard 2 sharps with an accidental for every C, or 1 sharp to reflect the mode?
[Christopher B. J. Smith:]
... the one I suggest to my students - the first option you mentioned.
I would think surely the answer to this would depend on whether the music was conceived modally, or in traditionally major/minor terms (with or without chromatic modification of notes or chords).
snip
In reality, there are aren't major or minor modes at all, because the concept is rather different.
Actually, for these purposes, I defined "major mode" as one with a major third, amd "Minor mode" as any one with a minor third, the third being the defining note of the tonic triad.
This is a common concept in key-based music. Tonally educated ears (like a lot of Western music students and their audiences) tend to hear modes as altered major or minor scales, rather than major scales starting on different notes. So in that way, we can compare the modes to their closest major or minor key, and the altered note is the characteristic note of the mode. Thus:
Dorian = minor nat 6 Phrygian = minor b2 Lydian = major #4 Mixolydian = major b7 Aeolian = nat minor (no leading tone being the characteristic) Locrian = minor b2 and b5 (b5, being unique, is the characteristic)
Arranged in order from "most minor" to "most major", the modes would go: Locrian, Phrygian, Aeolian, Dorian, Mixolydian, Ionian, and Lydian.
I use that concept, too, but I call it "flatter to sharper"
Sure, musicians may be used to conceiving of
music as either major or minor - but if that conception doesn't match the style
of music, one might as well bite the bullet straight away, and move away from
that conception right from the start. If a notational practice is unorthodox or
unexpected, surely that is not an argument against using it, if that notation
merely reflects an unexpected quality inherent in the music.
There you have another common dichotomy which has been discussed on this list many times (not to mention in classrooms, and in my own head on many an occasion); should one notate the music to best reflect the MUSIC, or to best communicate to the PERFORMER? Not an easy question, but in this case, since I sincerely beleive that modality reflects major and minor according to the 3rd of the mode, and I sincerely beleive that the performer will read it best that way, I choose major or minor key signatures with alterations in the music. If I thought that this was unorthodox, then I might examine it more closely, but I happen to find this to be the best method on both counts.
Better use such
notation than to use a conventional style of notation that appears to support a
conception of the music that is not in fact there.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Our notation system (especially as applied to modern music) is a series of extensions added on to a system that never meant to support, for example, polytonality, polyrhythm, synthetic scales, any kind of extended chromaticism, etc, etc. Often our only choice is to try to notate something using traditional tools for a non-traditional sound, and it is a terrible kludge, but we do it anyway, because the alternative is inventing a new system and teaching musicians how to use it.
In these more recent examples of tonal music, the tonal centre moves around
very fluidly within one diatonic scale (key signature), and does not stay in
just the major or minor key associated with the key signature: in fact, it is
very easy to conceive passages of this music as being in this or that mode. The
complete or near-complete absence of chromatic notes allows modal colour to be
about as obvious as it can possibly be.
So, in music like this, it would certainly be quite nonsensical to change
the key signature of a modal passage to match the major or minor key that would
start on the note that is the tonic for the time being - and then to put in all
the accidentals that would be needed to just include the notes that the original
(modal) key signature would dictate anyway.
In your example, I would agree with you. For a D blues (the original question) I would not, but as I said, the question is not an easy one, and the answer depends partly on your idea of the role of notation.
Trying to write modal music based on major or minor key signatures, apart from just not making sense (to me, at least), also rests on the assumption of classifying modes into major and minor, which I argued against above.
For a D blues (I hope I am not misconstruing the original question), it would start in D mixo, go to G mixo (needs an Fnat), back to D mixo, then to A mixo (needs a C#, whoops, leading tone! V7 to I cadence! Tonal alert!) before cadencing on D mixo. This is clearly (to me, at least) in D major (with modal alterations), and would be best written with two sharps.
So, in music that is modally conceived, it seems best to me to accept the
modal nature of the music, and use key signatures appropriately to match the
mode.
However, the original question was asking about a type of music that I
would imagine would probably include quite a few accidentals besides the minor
7th (perhaps the odd minor 3rd or diminished 5th also?), which would make it not
fit any particular mode;
I suppose you are confining yourself to the church modes (as I was, since the original question was about Mixolydian mode), but a blues scale IS a mode, too, just not one based on major scales. It is closer to an altered pentatonic, which can only be notated with alterations in our system, so we are forced to choose a key sig that doesn't reflect it perfectly.
and I would probably be inclined to use the major key
signature, if the music had a major feel to it, and didn't seem to be based on a
system of different modes.
Yes.
Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
