Modality and special scales

[allorens]

Following on from the previous issue, it might be useful to include the possibility of annotating modal harmony in specific passages too. It could be done by adding some labels before the first harmony in each passage.

.I= Ionian
.D= Dorian
.P= Phrygian
.Ly= Lydian
.M = Mixolydian
.A= Aeolian
.Lo= Locrian

.D.and .A would not be confounded with the global key at the start of the piece, as if these modes are attached to the first harmony they would need to be in the second position after the key; and .I would not be confounded with a return to the main key (I.) because of the full stop's position.

Same for octatonic (.O ?). pentatonic (.P ?) and whole-tone scales (.WT)

[johentsch]

Thank you for the suggestion, that is something we definitely need to consider but which also will have greater repercussions (e.g. for computation of chord tones). I think the proposals are important for extending the standard towards to 16th and 20th century. I'm not sure, however, if they should be interspersed in Common Practice pieces because the distinctions (e.g. minor and aeolian) could lead to quite messy results.

What would be your suggestion for including the scale's root?

[allorens]

I was thinking of 19th-century works, such as some by Liszt for instance, where he uses some special scales in specific passages, while the rest of the piece is clearly tonal.

Would iii.P make any sense? or even iiiP? One could take Y for Ionian to avoid confusion with the degree I (eg. V.Y or VY).

Also octatonic could be 8 (II8), pentatonic 5 and whole-tone scale, 12 as those figures are not used for figured bass.

But of course this would need a specific sub-project; it was just a suggestion for future work.

[allorens]

I've been thinking about this and I'm still not convinced about the solution of labelling church modes and non-diatonic scales in the same way as tonal music - although I acknowledge it may be the most straightforward thing to do at the moment; so just some thoughts to discuss.

In the case of chords made of stacked 4ths, as in Debussy and others, one would have to annotate I(+b7-5+4-3), which is rather long a label, or, to simplify, I7(-5+4-3). If the chord would to happen over the dominant, it'd be something like V7(-5+4-3), which would give a misleading sense of dominant function. I don't see how to do it otherwise, but we (?) may need to think very carefully how to extend the standards to other repertoires.

Also, my suggestion of adding specific labels, such as WT, P, Lo, etc. had to do with the possibility of including an extra column in the tables were one would get the non-diatonic info. I think that would be very useful when analysing single pieces, so to have, in a single column, the succession of diat (which could be left blank) and the "special" modes or scales. What do you think of this?