What chromatics go with modes besides minor?

[t0mmeh]

I was just wondering..
If the minor mode occasionally has a #6 or #7 used as a chromatic alteration, shouldn't every mode theoretically have 2 chromatic alterations available to them?

[stevel]

Originally Posted by t0mmeh

I was just wondering..
If the minor mode occasionally has a #6 or #7 used as a chromatic alteration, shouldn't every mode theoretically have 2 chromatic alterations available to them?

No.

A 7 note scale has 5 or more chromatic alterations possible.

Just from a classical perspective in a Major key:

#1 acts as LT to ii.
b2 acts as Neapolitan root
#2 LT to iii
b3 mode mixture from parallel minor
#4 LT to V
b5 as 7 of VI7 (V of N)
#5 LT to vi
b6 mode mixture from parallel minor
b7 as mode mixture from parallel minor and 7th to key of IV

That's just a sampling.

The problem is, there are really no such things as "Harmonic Minor" and "Melodic Minor" scales. In fact - and bear with me here - there is no such thing as "scales" - Scales are "memory devices" we use to show us what the primary notes of a key are. In A minor, there are 7 primary notes:

A B C D E F G (that's in ascending order - a "scale", which comes from "scala" or "ladder" - climbing up=ascending). However, composers would frequently alter the G for Harmonic reasons (to give V and viio chords Dominant function) and the F and G for melodic reasons (avoiding an +2, etc.) and that's where we get harmonic and melodic minors from. But it's an oversimplification to think of them as three separate scales.

So REALLY, Bach wouldn't write in "A Harmonic Minor" - he just wrote in "A Minor" and altered 6 and 7 as necessary.

Now, unfortunately, this fact has escaped many of our "scale-oriented" thinkers and a truly independent way of using "scales" as compositional resources has evolved (which is OK). So, for example, A Harmonic Minor:

A B C D E F G# A has taken on its own unique identity and people will use it exclusively. And like other modes, they treat it rotationally. For example, the so called "Overtone" Scale is C D E F# G A Bb. That scale is G Melodic minor starting on C (or the 4th mode of G Melodic minor if you like).

But even though we've "homogenized" modes to some degree, historically, each mode had its own common alterations.

For example, Dorian Mode frequently uses b6 and #7, and not to mention #3 (in D Dorian, Bb, C# and F#).

Phrygian however, unlike the rest of the "non-leading tone" modes would rarely if ever use #7 (in E Phrygian, D#) and would frequently use #2 (F#).

Lydian commonly used b4 (in F Lydian, Bb).

So historically, each mode had certain characteristics.

When you alter Dorian's 6, it is Aeolian, or Minor. When you alter 6 and 7, it's Harmonic and 7 Melodic (that's lower 6 and raise 7 from the mode).

So by the time "The Minor Mode" evolved in the 1500s, its 6 and 7 were already variable from the chromatic alterations that had been being made in modes for a millennium.

Now, for the practical aspect of your question - one might assume that since you raise 6 and 7 in minor, that you'd either raise 6 and 7 of any mode which would be problematic, or raise the two notes that move to that position. For example:

A B C D E F# G# A = 6 - 7 raised "Melodic minor".

D E F# G# A B C = 3 and 4 raised (still the F# and G#) from D Dorian. It becomes a #4 b7 as the Overtone scale above.

But this is not a historical practice.

Nonetheless, people have applied this principle to modern modes so you can get away with it. But notice in neither case are the alterations random.

If you want to take G Mixolydian and alter 3 and 5 like so:

G A Bb or B C Db or D E F G, you've got a blues scale. But that's not how a blues scale developed.

HTH,
Steve

[t0mmeh]

Thank you this answers alot of the things I've been wondering about. It is interesting how a shift in context can reveal so much about the structural framework of music. This may sound a bit ridiculous, but I've noticed music seems to evolve through time in the same patterns that an organism does...bear with me. A human being is really a collaboration of organs working together as a team, these organs are composed of tissue, which is composed of cells. Equate a cell with a pitch, tissues as scales/modes, and organs as chords. A chord progression is a display of harmonious interaction between chords, which is part of a larger whole..such as a sonata or symphony...I could draw this metaphor out but I need a smoke ;]

[stevel]

Originally Posted by t0mmeh

This may sound a bit ridiculous, but I've noticed music seems to evolve through time

The word evolution is a funny one. It is typically inferred by people that evolution includes the idea that things will become "better".

Many people have no idea that music evolves at all. Others who do understand it evolves, think that it reached the pinnacle of evolution in the Major/minor system of tonality, especially that of the 18th and 19th century - and consequently think it has been "devolving" ever since.

I tend to believe instead that evolution is a natural process. Things happen that cause ecosystems to either vanish or change. The "birth" of the Guitar caused the Lute to "go extinct". But that to me doesn't mean that the Lute was any less meritorious than Guitar - it simply was less adaptable to a new environment.

So I don't see the music of Palestrina as any better or worse than the music of Mozart. They are just different stops along an evolutionary continuum where each is suited perfectly for the environment in which it exists, but not as well suited for other environments.

So yes, music evolves. Does it get better? Well, let's say some evolutionary experiments are a success, and others are failures.

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by t0mmeh

but I need a smoke ;]

Oh, and quit smoking, it's bad for you :-)

Steve