Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva, Tom Blackshear and Sean O'Brien who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 16188
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
Music Theory debate
The "flamenco" relevance comes in towards the end, so this post is not for everybody here. This guy has his own system that does away, basically, with the classical "minor key" vs or in favor of the other natural modes defined by a key signature only. He challenged this theory Facebook group to a debate to defend his idea against the Western Common Practice era's two key system (major or minor). Nobody here probably cared much about the latter as we use the modal Phrygian (a constant debate), so I offered to debate the opposing side of the two key classical idea (I am playing devil's advocate basically). After like an hour ( ) I admit that I am not in disagreement with his idea and in fact recognize the co-existance of the older modal systems from the Renaissance, with the two key system. Yes, it is esoteric and nerdy, but it was what the guy wanted to engage with.
Not since I posted the 19th century guitar video. Camera angle (come on guys, instagram much?) the camera from above to below makes you look skinnier than you are, and the camera angle from below makes you look obese. Plus my new shirt is rather form fitting (meaning gay ).
That theory thing is getting around social media. I ran into it yesterday. I told the person touting it that the music theory section of a large public library still has the books required.
the camera from above to below makes you look skinnier than you are,
thanks for the tip. now I know how to make my first youtube video without people noticing how fat I have become (I will install the camera on my roof for max. result)
That theory thing is getting around social media. I ran into it yesterday. I told the person touting it that the music theory section of a large public library still has the books required.
It slipped my mind totally that the source you clued me in to long ago that relates to this subject, Juan Bermudo, actually advocated for altering the KEY SIGNATURE to reflect transpositions of the modes. This is exactly what this guy Brian Kelly is advocating in favor of (use the key signature of the notes the mode actually uses vs a major or minor tonal key signature), and shows what might be the earliest historic SHARP key signatures as a result. It ties it to the "Elami" tuned vihuela (he wanted us to imagine this instrument to do transpositions, and I discussed a while back about Venegas preferring that ACTUAL vihuela for realizing the majority of motet repertoire thanks to the range, which is identical to the modern guitar). So basically this would be historical ammo this guy could use in favor of his system (more or less). Notice since there was not yet the circle of 5ths concept but Bermudo uses the incorrect order (G#C#F#), but the concept is clear what he is advocating for.
First image is "primero" meaning FIRST MODE (D Dorian) transposed to Elami (E dorian) with two sharps in G clef, and on the facing page the same mode transported to "h-mi" or B Dorian, using 3 sharps in C clef. Second image is 8th mode (G hypomixolydian) transposed to E Mixolydian with 3 sharps in C clef.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
A question: in the first half, while arguing for the prosecution, you make it seem like the main reason for collapsing of all modes into two - major and minor - is the adoption of equal temperament. (Later on you argue for the defence and we discover that there are still other like "E flamenco/phrygian" that survived).
However, as far as I remember, the equal versus unequal temperament is a different thing - it is the 'colours' of the different tonalities (like A min vs. F min or C maj vs. Ab maj) that were lost/flattened with the adoption of equal temperament. (THIS I understand, including the 'why'; I am confused about it being used the way you use it for the prosecution in the first half when speaking about something different - the flattening of modes into Major(+minor) only.)
Can you elaborate on this a bit? Could you have made the argument for the prosecution without invoking the equalization of temperament - why/how or why not?
To say it another way, the equalization of temperament occurred (much) later than the collapse of old modes into major+minor, so I am missing something in the logic of what you were presenting to the guy in the first part.
A question: in the first half, while arguing for the prosecution, you make it seem like the main reason for collapsing of all modes into two - major and minor - is the adoption of equal temperament. (Later on you argue for the defence and we discover that there are still other like "E flamenco/phrygian" that survived).
However, as far as I remember, the equal versus unequal temperament is a different thing - it is the 'colours' of the different tonalities (like A min vs. F min or C maj vs. Ab maj) that were lost/flattened with the adoption of equal temperament.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? Could you have made the argument for the prosecution without invoking the equalization of temperament - why/how or why not?
Have you ever seen a book called ‘Lutes, Viols and Temperament’?
It’s got it all broken down.
Equal temperament to an extent homogenizes the way different keys feel, but alleviate wild chord dissonance when groups of transposing instruments play together. The old system works for solo instruments or small groups of instruments that can utilize the same temperament tunings. There’s nothing stopping modern flamenco players from using tied gut frets and moving them to any particular old temperament positions 😂
Equal temperament to an extent homogenizes the way different keys feel, but alleviate wild chord dissonance when groups of transposing instruments play together.
I am aware; I made edits to my post above to clarify what I am looking for.
To say it another way, the equalization of temperament occurred (much) later than the collapse of old modes into major+minor, so I am missing something in the logic of what you were presenting to the guy in the first part.
So the true historical situation slowly emerges we realize that thousands of years ago, before the "microtones" of Ancient Greek and much later Makkam, and later still Indian sruti etc, there was the "diatonic" scale of ancient Mesopotamian instruments, mapping to our basic western major. Understanding we don't know of any precise micro tuning, we can assume that they were NOT modern math level equal tempered, and later we have Pythagorus. Along the way I realized that there was likely the situation that is still on going, that SOME people recognize the comma issue is solved by equal half steps (even if they only used 7 notes at a time), while others will continue to hate that and want more consonant beating intervals. So the fight begins, and we know that from the descriptions it never stopped till the present day. The situation branches off with the enharmonic 13 note modes, then gets worse and worse with the 53 pitch Turkish thing (nobody EVER using all notes of ANY system, usually a ball park of 7, as humanity already wanted from the start of civilization). Proof of the EQ comes from Juan Bermudo when he starts his series in 1549 advocating for Pythagorus (like a good humanist that just dusted off those books), but by 1555 revises his fret placement to a hair off of 12tet, and basically wants you to glue those in. He wants modal key signatures and 7 vihuelas in your head. Soon after Zarlino hits us with backward mode reading and 19 note keyboards!!!
Two steps forward, one step back, now we have autotune. So I hope you can see the tuning thing was NEVER solved literally, but had been on the table, most likely since cuneiform tablets!!! So when I say "when they get it together along comes the modes collapsing", we see in SPAIN thanks to Romerito, the circle was envisioned by guitar chording first (Amat 1596), so a consensus was slowly emerging the modes were vague and ambiguous no matter how you tune, in the WEST. Meanwhile Arabs etc. pretending they "invented" microtonality when all they are preserving really is the microtonal "arguments" about how to tune the octave and its divisions, of system X from history (possibly even corrupted after Western colonization, at least I strongly suspect that). So while it seems arbitrary that Westerners draw the proper circle in the 1700s, and were still fighting of tuning, we see the power of Bach following Fischer, completing the circle Fischer never could (nor Greiter nor others that tried that as a thought experiment), and at the same time dumping the E mode (Phrygian) in favor of ONLY two keys. Bach also did not even yet use "correct key signatures" as we think of them now, all the time. But that is soon on the way, and the basic circle becomes a "concept" our friend Brian Kelly can draw on his arm and teach kids about, but he just does not see the "point" of the "Minor key" in the framework....only because he did not ever understand the need for that argument that had gone on for thousands of years.
Considering the Eastern modal systems still exploit the microtones and exemplify what a "pure" and true mode can sound like (it is easy because the tuning forces the issue), we today have to be careful in how we present "Modes" in the equal tempered system. That business of "Ab has a certain color E major has this", that is people holding on to the Zarlino 19 note mess. They STILL teach kids in orchestra C# is intonated different than Db, horrific IMO. The kids don't know that is hanging on from a dead idea/system/argument. So it is ALSO alive and well. Many that understand this modal ambiguity issue realize we have this body of work called "common practice era" classical music that teaches us how to avoid the old traps of "ambiguity" by the major and minor key system, so care needs to be applied to any OTHER modes that were ignored by that system. Our Phrygian in flamenco is a great example because it takes years to master those cadences. People conflate it with the eastern system due to Phrygian fetish bias only, ignoring tuning which is the heart of those systems. I recognize the techniques, now, coming from the Renaissance when that ambiguity had been the name of the game and argument, hence demonstrations in Treatises of how to "do it RIGHT" with many contradictions back then. To play safe, most people today that get it stick to modal "vamps", or "non-functional progressions" etc. that limit the scale to the one or two color format to preserve one of the modes. This guy Brian was under the impression he could do that with ALL 7 CHORDS, which is dangerous because it invites accidentals to strengthen your tonic away from ambiguity, and that is ALREADY what the two key system is about. So we have to "keep it pure", and vamp according to special rules, or fall into the two key thing, or just use BOTH at the same time (tonal part of the song then a long modal vamp section, back to tonal chords, etc.).
What I realize is that the modes used to have "norms" from the Renaissance that express modal tonic, bypassing utterly that two key collapse and methods, and by repeating small ostinatos like Romanescas, Folia (same thing really), and etc., popular and jazz etc, is just doing the same thing and the auto tune thing or not is in fact arbitrary as people still can't tune their guitars or sing on pitch!!!
What I realize is that the modes used to have "norms" from the Renaissance that express modal tonic
I don't think you 'went there' in your chat with that guy, but wouldn't you say we have a good example from flamenco tonality for this above regarding harmonic functioning? As in, unlike major/minor tonality, flamenco has its second degree serving as a Dominant that gravitates towards the tonic; not the 5th. In E flamenco, this is F; in A flamenco, it is Bb; etc. Which is how it is used - the F-E (Bb->A) cadence is effectively dominant-tonic resolution. So, different, unique, rules.
Printable Version
) I admit that I am not in disagreement with his idea and in fact recognize the co-existance of the older modal systems from the Renaissance, with the two key system. Yes, it is esoteric and nerdy, but it was what the guy wanted to engage with. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread