Re: Unanswered Question #1

"David Webber" <dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ftf73g$bbp$2$8302bc10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nowadays I'm convinced that
> "based on" is probably a poor concept, but also that Dorian had a lot
more 
> to do with it,  if only because it was far more popular over a far
longer 
> period.

I would agree, and maybe "minor expanded upon" the Dorian concept, or
words 
to that effect might be a little more in line with what's typically going
on 
in minor key works.

>
> I regard key signature as more or less irrelevant - they never sat
easily 
> with the minor mode.   If one things of minor as having a flexible 6th
and 
> 7th (and text books describe both 6ths and 7ths as "diatonic" in the 
> minor) then there are four possible scales, all very familiar:
>
> min6 min7   - aeolian/natural minor/descending melodic minor
> min6 maj7  - harmonic minor
> maj6 min7  - dorian
> maj6 maj7  - ascending melodic minor
>
> It seems obvious that the minor mode is a continuance of musica ficta in

> which we recognise some sort of democratic equality between the two 6ths

> and the two 7ths.    In as much as a subset of the diatonic notes can
form 
> either an aeolian or dorian scale, than they are both contributors. 
> Historically, what was there before evolved into minor via musica ficta.

> As both Dorian and Aeolian were there,  it surely makes little sense to 
> describe minor as "based on" one rather than the other  (unless Dorian
was 
> indeed much more common than Aeolian - in which case it may have the 
> better claim).

And we shouldn't forget Phrygian either - the b2, which is generally more 
common in minor key works seems to attach well to minor key.

I might go so far as to point out something relatively interesting:

The "major"modes, seem to be more or less absorbed by being related by 5th

to Major - the two most common modulatory paths - to the subdominant and
to 
the dominant (I'm only considering Major keys at this point, so no
parallel 
or relative minors) are not unrelated to Mixolydian and Lydian
respectively. 
It seems that V/V, and V/IV, and modulations to those keys are - let's say

"instigated" by what could be seen as introducing Lydian (#4) or
Mixolydian 
(b7) elements into the Major mode. So it seems to me, that in the 
Major/minor tonal system, the other Major modes, Lydian and Mixolydian,
seem 
to be "absorbed" into the Major mode.

In minor on the other hand, it seems like there's a little less
"absorption" 
going on - as if Dorian and Phrygian (also related by 5th to aeolian) are
a 
little reluctant to give up their individuality. Phrygian is obviously
more 
"independent" in that it alters 2, which doesn't alter between Major and 
minor parallels. Dorian then seems much "closer" and may be partly whi
many 
of us see such a strong connection between it and minor (in addition to
the 
other reasons you mention).

Continuing this supposed logic, Lydian melodies very often altered the 4th

to make it basically Ionian, and because of the leading tone cadences in 
Midolydian, it too became more indistinguishable from the Major mode. So 
ficta seems to "merge" them all into one thing. In contrast, raising 7 of 
the Dorian mode didn't have the same effect of "destroying the mode's 
distinguishability". In Phrygian, since 7 was not raised, it maintained
it's 
individuality (which is probably why we have lingering evidence in
Phrygian 
half cadences, b2 structures, etc.). So from that standpoint, ficta has
less 
on a direct affect on negating the individuality of minor modes, whereas 
with major modes, it sort of promotes Major as a "more distinct" rather
than 
"based on" concept like minor with Dorian.

But again, I merely speculate.

Steve